5e skills: thoughts on them?

[Ralanr]

I really enjoy the system of 5e, except for the skills. I played pathfinder before, so I'm used to building new skills or making mine better at each new level. 5e skills are chosen at level one and you have to take a feat (optional feature mind you) to get three more skills or tools.

I don't like this, I don't see how to change it due to bound accuracy (which I don't mind. In fact I like bound accuracy a bit). I do like how they tried to make some skills that allow stats more general use (like investigation). But some skills, interesting skills, get overshadowed by others (investigation vs perception for example). And some skills might get abused to make class features useless (more of a personal issue. I'll explain below).

Hoe could this be fixed? I'm not sure it can with the system. If you make gaining skills easier, then people won't spread out in diversity. In my group perception is highly valued (I feel it's too highly valued). Not everyone takes it, but a good chunk (2-3 out of 5-6 players) take it. If you don't have it then you run into a lot of problems. But other general skills aren't as punishing (this depends on group and campaign obviously). Personally, I think perception shouldn't be a skill, not while we have passive perception. Though there are probably problems with this.

Now on skill abuse:I hate how my group uses insight. In figuring out intention, that's fine. But they also roll insight in combat to figure out an enemy's current hit points. This works for things like shield guardians. My friend described it as getting a "feel" for an enemy. When I told him the BM ability, he said that such an ability (executed the way we do it with insight) should belong to every class. He also pointed out that a minute out of combat is too long to do it without suspecting suspicion. Finally, since we don't have a fighter in the group, the rolls don't hurt any of our characters.

I've brought up the skill issue with my DM, she has problems with how they work also, but has no idea how to change it. We did introduce a homebrew rule that allows expertise if you have two sources of that skill (so if your background gives perception and you pick it as a class skill, you have expertise in it). I'm fine with that idea because I see the sacrifice, speciality vs versatility.

What are your thoughts on the skills system in 5e?

[mephnick]

It's the one part of the system I don't like and there have been massive discussions about it before.

I don't mind the proficiency system, and I think you get enough skills, but as a DM I still have no idea how to set DC's for skill checks. I basically just hand-wave the skill or throw out 15 for every singe check because I can't be bothered to think about it.

I hated a lot of things about the 3.5 skill system too, so maybe I just hate skill systems!

[ChubbyRain]

It's the one part of the system I don't like and there have been massive discussions about it before.

I don't mind the proficiency system, and I think you get enough skills, but as a DM I still have no idea how to set DC's for skill checks. I basically just hand-wave the skill or throw out 15 for every singe check because I can't be bothered to think about it.

I hated a lot of things about the 3.5 skill system too, so maybe I just hate skill systems!

The current system rules, as a DM, the DC is whatever you want it to be. There are some guildines in the books but they basically go *shrug* and say "do whatever".

Typically reduce a DC by 5 for skills checks. Let's your players know that skills are possible and you encourage them to use them and you can open up a part of the game that has sucked in each edition of D&D.

Also, look into 13th age background/skill system. It does what 5e wants to do but even better.

[Naanomi]

I'm actually pretty satisfied with the skill system; most characters I build have the skills I conceptually want for them while not covering everything. I have to make choices about skills on character creation, but almost never to the degree I can't make my concept work (only once when I really wanted another tool proficiency and had to plan to train it later)

We do have a house rule we are testing where every class gets an assigned 'expertise' to a lesser skill at level 5, but overall I'm much happier with this skills system than I was with anything pre-3.5 at least

[Slipperychicken]

Insight giving you enemy stats isn't RAW, so the DM can rule as he pleases on that. My suggestion is to give the party an appropriate knowledge check, then give them ranges on a success. So if they run into an elephant and try to guess its strength (22), they'd roll Knowledge(Nature); on a success they'd figure that it's somewhere between 20 and 26, on a failure they might estimate 24-30. Even on a success, try not to always put the exact score in the center of the range. For a humanoid however, they might roll insight instead; either that, or you could implement Knowledge(Humanoids) which serves the same role Knowledge(Local) did in 3,5.

I feel you on the DCs though. I think the developers really dropped the ball by failing to give us enough guidelines. While the medium/hard/very hard DCs are better than nothing, it's still not enough, especially for tasks which the players and DM are unfamiliar with (doubly so for ones that interact with elements that don't even exist IRL, like monsters and magic). My hope is that they patch it over by putting the guidelines in another book.

[Ralanr]

Insight giving you enemy stats isn't RAW, so the DM can rule as he pleases on that. My suggestion is to give the party an appropriate knowledge check, then give them ranges on a success. So if they run into an elephant and try to guess its strength (22), they'd roll Knowledge(Nature); on a success they'd figure that it's somewhere between 20 and 26, on a failure they might estimate 24-30. Even on a success, try not to always put the exact score in the center of the range. For a humanoid however, they might roll insight instead; either that, or you could implement Knowledge(Humanoids) which serves the same role Knowledge(Local) did in 3,5.

I feel you on the DCs though. I think the developers really dropped the ball by failing to give us enough guidelines. While the medium/hard/very hard DCs are better than nothing, it's still not enough, especially for tasks which the players and DM are unfamiliar with (doubly so for ones that interact with elements that don't even exist IRL, like monsters and magic). My hope is that they patch it over by putting the guidelines in another book.

I'd rather just everybody use investigation rather than insight. Makes knowledge skills more desirable. But I was given the answer, "it's a feel you get. That's why wisdom."

This is from the other player. When I ran a session and told him that I won't run the same way as our DM he gave me an annoyed look when his insight roll told him the ratfolk was insane. He wanted current hit points with insight. I never said he couldn't roll insight, but I didn't say it'd tell him what he wanted.

I don't DM much so I'm willing to accept I was an ******* there.

[Cybren]

I have never liked the skill system in any iteration of d&d and this isn't an exception. It's better because it's kind of vague and hand wavy so you can use it but i feel the skills are too broad and that vagueness is still ultimately a weakness for me

[ChubbyRain]

I have never liked the skill system in any iteration of d&d and this isn't an exception. It's better because it's kind of vague and hand wavy so you can use it but i feel the skills are too broad and that vagueness is still ultimately a weakness for me

Try 13th age, super vague in a good way.

[Ardantis]

I have never liked the skill system in any iteration of d&d and this isn't an exception. It's better because it's kind of vague and hand wavy so you can use it but i feel the skills are too broad and that vagueness is still ultimately a weakness for me

DCs aside, I think the strength of the skill system is that it's tied into the proficiency system with weapons, spells, and saves. That means skill rolls in combat like shoves and intimidates can be resisted in a balanced way- a proficient skill being resisted by a proficient save will be fair, unlike in 3.5 where skills so rapidly outpaced saves. And with Bounded Accuracy, even non-proficient defenses have a chance. Remember intimidate in 3.5?

[ChubbyRain]

DCs aside, I think the strength of the skill system is that it's tied into the proficiency system with weapons, spells, and saves. That means skill rolls in combat like shoves and intimidates can be resisted in a balanced way- a proficient skill being resisted by a proficient save will be fair, unlike in 3.5 where skills so rapidly outpaced saves. And with Bounded Accuracy, even non-proficient defenses have a chance. Remember intimidate in 3.5?

Balance? 5e skills?

Ummm no. Between the advantage/disadvantage system and how easy that is to manipulate, expertise, and stupid anti-fantasy rules such as size restrictions.... The skill system in spells and battle is not what one should call "balanced".

Just because the numbers aren't as big doesn't mean that the game is more balanced.

[ad_hoc]

On proficiency vs skill points: I think it is much better this way. Skill points ended up being just like proficiency. It was a little more granular but I don't think it added all that much. I think most players just picked their skills at the start then upped the same ones each level.

On your other issues that sounds like group think. That is a weird use of insight to me. The group should seek to use other skills more as well.

[ChubbyRain]

On proficiency vs skill points: I think it is much better this way. Skill points ended up being just like proficiency. It was a little more granular but I don't think it added all that much. I think most players just picked their skills at the start then upped the same ones each level.

On your other issues that sounds like group think. That is a weird use of insight to me. The group should seek to use other skills more as well.

Proficient is a better way to go. For sure. However you could do it both ways.

Have proficiency open up more sub options that you can choose from as you level up.

Proficiency in Athletics opens up some sub options like

Jumper: Advantage on extending jumps

Climber: Advantage on climbing checks when dealing with normal and improbable climbing condition.

Or whatever. You could have very specific lists of things that show growth within the skill themselves.

This could give everyone what they want. You could use the general system as is or get more in depth.

Perhaps only specific classes gain this ability?

[pwykersotz]

I was initially on the fence, leaning towards disliking the current skill setup. However in practice the system performs very well and the biggest benefit for me is that it's not a chore to manage.

But your fixes seem pretty easy to accomplish as long as everyone involved actually wants to get on the same page. It's a flexible system, and you can combine skills if you think that one is useless with the other there. Passive Perception being king is just the GM never calling for it...it's valuable to keep as a skill because proficiency affects your passive ability too.

In terms of duplicating the BM's ability, if that's the way it will play out then it frees up a maneuver for you. I wouldn't run it like this, but if the group likes it as a whole you might be stuck with it. I'd focus on the benefits of having even more abilities.

And yes, the big benefit to this is definitely balance with other mechanics that calculate things differently but which have the same limits. Changing the numbers will probably cause more fallout than it's worth, unless you want to spend quite a lot of time accounting for every interaction ability checks have with the system.

And as an option (one of many, this is just off the top of my head) to increase in skills as you level, consider asking the DM if you can either use the optional training variant to learn new skills in your downtime, or else gain proficiency in a new skill or tool as a bonus every time you get to choose a Feat/ASI.

[Xetheral]

I think most players just picked their skills at the start then upped the same ones each level.

My experience is that players usually maxed one or two skills (three or four for high skill point classes), and then broadly disributed the remaining points.

[Once a Fool]

I'd rather just everybody use investigation rather than insight. Makes knowledge skills more desirable. But I was given the answer, "it's a feel you get. That's why wisdom."

This is from the other player. When I ran a session and told him that I won't run the same way as our DM he gave me an annoyed look when his insight roll told him the ratfolk was insane. He wanted current hit points with insight. I never said he couldn't roll insight, but I didn't say it'd tell him what he wanted.

I don't DM much so I'm willing to accept I was an ******* there.

Just wanted to point out that 5e presumes that the players describe what they want to do and the DM then tells them what ability check, if any, they should roll, at which point, if the player can gain proficiency from some source it gets added.

You are not out of line for enforcing this dichotomy in your game, even if the regular DM doesn't.

Here's how your example would play out in my game:

"I'm rolling insight to see his hp."

"You mean you're trying to determine the staying power of this particular opponent?"

"Uh, yeah."

"That seems like an intelligence check, but, since you are a skilled combatant, add your proficiency."

"Twenty!"

"Great. He looks very tough, probably tough enough to withstand several solid blows."

Anything beyond that (by which I mean meta game information) would not be knowable, except in cases that a specific character ability specified otherwise.

I would, however, not have a problem with letting the player quickly analyze all opponents at the same time, so their relative strengths could be considered.

[Chronos]

I have two problems with the skill system. First, I miss the ability to dabble. I remember back in 2e, a friend and I went over the skills and realized that it was just impossible to stat out either of us as D&D characters, because there were just too many things that we had a nontrivial (but low) amount of training in. In 3rd edition, that became explainable: We're both experts who spread out our skill points, and so have one or two ranks in a bunch of things. But in 5e, either you're completely untrained, or you're maxing out a skill, and there's nothing in between.

Second, the rules are just too vague on how to use many of the skills. As written, you can't use Stealth at all unless you don't need to, and you have to dig through multiple chapters of both the PHB and the DMG to figure out how to find and disarm traps.

[DivisibleByZero]

I don't have any issues with 5e's skill system.
I know some people think that every skill check should come with hard as fast rules governing the DCs, but to be honest, that's exactly what the 5-30 range for very easy-nearly impossible does. All you have to do is ignore the competency level of the person attempting the task, and decide how difficult the task would be for the average person with minimal training.
How hard would it be for the Average Joe? Once you can answer that question, setting the DC is easy, because answering the first question also answers the second.

Is it something that John Q Public would find maybe a little bit more than moderately difficult (15), but not quite what you would call hard (20)? Okay, DC 18. Done.
Can John Q Public most likely do it with his eyes closed? No roll needed, or DC 5.
Is it something that John Q Public could do fairly reliably, but sometimes makes simple mistakes? DC 10.
It is something that John Q Public probably fails about as often as he succeeds? Moderate, DC 15.
Is he trying in the heat of battle? Raise the initial DC by 5 to show the difficulty in doing seemingly simple tasks amidst heavy and dangerous distraction. The Moderate task becomes Hard when an Orc is trying to murder you.

It's really not that difficult to nail down DCs.

[PhantomRenegade]

Player:"i roll insight, how many hitpoints does the monster have"

DM: "you take a 5 points of permanent wisdom damage and your character is now insane"

Player: "WHAT?!?!?!?"

DM: "Well your character didn't know what hitpoints actually were but by trying to find out and getting such high wisdom it glimpsed into the true nature of its faux-life and has been driven insane by it. You may NOT draw deadpool comparisons or make 4'th wall breaking jokes, the event was so traumatic that your character's mind immediately obliterated all the memories of it along with part of its cognitive ability as well as a vast amount of random memories leading to his dementia.

He is however left with the feeling that the monster is kinda worn down by the party's attacks"


That is to say the DM should never really have let them use insight to determine precise HP in the first place.

[DivisibleByZero]

Bloodied is one of the few things that I liked about 4e.
We still use it. Although in 5e it doesn't have any mechanical aspect, it lets the players know when the enemies and other PCs are injured enough to take notice.
We basically view HP as the SWd20/3eUA vitality points did, where if you got hit, you actually dodged/parried/blocked the attack or took a glancing blow that didn't injure you, but lowered your ability to continue doing so.
Once someone/something gets bloodied, it takes an actual hit to a non vital area. Once HP are gone it gets hit for real and that one is a death/incapacitating blow.
So at our table, knowing a monster's HP will happen as soon as you get him Bloodied, or at least, you'll have an idea at that point.

[Chronos]

I know some people think that every skill check should come with hard as fast rules governing the DCs, but to be honest, that's exactly what the 5-30 range for very easy-nearly impossible does. All you have to do is ignore the competency level of the person attempting the task, and decide how difficult the task would be for the average person with minimal training.
How hard would it be for the Average Joe? Once you can answer that question, setting the DC is easy, because answering the first question also answers the second.
OK, so how hard is it for an average Joe to identify the damage type dealt by a brass dragon's breath weapon?

[DivisibleByZero]

OK, so how hard is it for an average Joe to identify the damage type dealt by a brass dragon's breath weapon?

It's not common knowledge. It's also not something that would require pouring over old tomes in a dusty library. He's probably heard rumors.
DC 15-20, probably about 18, with advantage if you have any working knowledge about or training involving dragons.

[PhantomRenegade]

When you say identify do you mean if he see's it? I'd let players who see a dragon's breath weapon know which kind of damage it does without any kind of roll.

[Tehnar]

I don't have any issues with 5e's skill system.
I know some people think that every skill check should come with hard as fast rules governing the DCs, but to be honest, that's exactly what the 5-30 range for very easy-nearly impossible does. All you have to do is ignore the competency level of the person attempting the task, and decide how difficult the task would be for the average person with minimal training.
How hard would it be for the Average Joe? Once you can answer that question, setting the DC is easy, because answering the first question also answers the second.

Is it something that John Q Public would find maybe a little bit more than moderately difficult (15), but not quite what you would call hard (20)? Okay, DC 18. Done.
Can John Q Public most likely do it with his eyes closed? No roll needed, or DC 5.
Is it something that John Q Public could do fairly reliably, but sometimes makes simple mistakes? DC 10.
It is something that John Q Public probably fails about as often as he succeeds? Moderate, DC 15.
Is he trying in the heat of battle? Raise the initial DC by 5 to show the difficulty in doing seemingly simple tasks amidst heavy and dangerous distraction. The Moderate task becomes Hard when an Orc is trying to murder you.

It's really not that difficult to nail down DCs.

What is the DC for something Jonny Q Public fails at all of the time but a expert can totally make every time?

[hymer]

What is the DC for something Jonny Q Public fails at all of the time but a expert can totally make every time?

The DM decides if a roll is needed. In these cases, no roll is needed; JQP fails, and the expert does it.

[Chronos]

And at some point you're somewhere between JQP and expert, and you go from failing to succeeding. At what point is that, and what do you roll when you're near that point?

[hymer]

And at some point you're somewhere between JQP and expert, and you go from failing to succeeding. At what point is that, and what do you roll when you're near that point?

Anything you want.

[Tehnar]

Anything you want.




Your roll:
1 Critical Failure
2-7 Failure
8-12 Argue with DM to see if you succeed or fail
13-19 Success
20 Critical Success


Words for the word god.

[Slipperychicken]

Your roll:
1 Critical Failure
2-7 Failure
8-12 Argue with DM to see if you succeed or fail
13-19 Success
20 Critical Success

I think you've just captured the essence of d20 right here.

[E’Tallitnics]

Words for the word god.

There are NO critical "anything" for ability checks or saving throws. The Crit Rules apply solely to the Attack Roll. That's because the DC for Checks and Saves can go higher than 20.

[Slipperychicken]

There are NO critical "anything" for ability checks or saving throws. The Crit Rules apply solely to the Attack Roll. That's because the DC for Checks and Saves can go higher than 20.

The point was to illustrate how DMs typically interpret d20 rolls, not how the system is supposed to work as-written.

[DivisibleByZero]

What is the DC for something Jonny Q Public fails at all of the time but a expert can totally make every time?

What did I say?
I said ignore the skill level of the user. So your scenario can't happen. Just like it can't happen in real life. If there's something that the average person fails at all of the time, then there aren't any experts that can make it every time.
That's a 3e mindset, and it is one of the things that made 3e's skill system horrible, because it is in no way realistic.

But with all of that said, you just described Hard quite efficiently, so around 20 is just about right. Minimal chance of success for the layman, minimal chance of failure for the expert.

[Xetheral]

And at some point you're somewhere between JQP and expert, and you go from failing to succeeding. At what point is that, and what do you roll when you're near that point?Anything you want.

That is a particularly unhelpful answer, especially to DMs who value mechanical consistency and predictability.

[DivisibleByZero]

And at some point you're somewhere between JQP and expert, and you go from failing to succeeding. At what point is that, and what do you roll when you're near that point?

I'll repeat, the skill level of the user is not part of the equation, and attempting to look at it that way is exactly what is going to create confusion. That's why people don't seem to like the 5-30 very easy-nearly impossible range.
It works quite well, but only if you take the skill level of the user out of the equation. Where the user happens to be is completely irrelevant. How JQP would do is the only thing that is relevant.

But once again, with all of that said, this describes Moderate-to-Hard quite efficiently, so around DC 15-20, probably around 18.
At that point, the layman has about 25% chance of success.
The experienced guy has about a 50% chance.
The expert has about a 80% chance (or can't fail, depending on level).

[hymer]

That is a particularly unhelpful answer, especially to DMs who value mechanical consistency and predictability.

Be that as it may, it's the correct answer. If the DM decides there's a need to roll, s/he sets the DC for that roll. Don't take it out on me.

[E’Tallitnics]

I'll repeat, the skill level of the user is not part of the equation, and attempting to look at it that way is exactly what is going to create confusion. That's why people don't seem to like the 5-30 very easy-nearly impossible range.
It works quite well, but only if you take the skill level of the user out of the equation. Where the user happens to be is completely irrelevant. How JQP would do is the only thing that is relevant.

But once again, with all of that said, this describes Moderate-to-Hard quite efficiently, so around DC 15-20, probably around 18.
At that point, the layman has about 25% chance of success.
The experienced guy has about a 50% chance.
The expert has about a 80% chance (or can't fail, depending on level).
I really wish more DMs understood this aspect of Bounded Accuracy. That being, “The DC does not change!”

The worlds of 5e D&D are an uncaring, unfeeling place…

When a DM creates one they assign a DC to a challenge and can then forget about it. When the characters encounter said challenge the DC is set and the DM merely needs to confirm that a character trying to defeat it has matched or exceeded the DC.

[DivisibleByZero]

I really wish more DMs understood this aspect of Bounded Accuracy. That being, “The DC does not change!”

Exactly.
All these questions comparing one character to another only highlight the fact that people can't grasp this concept, which is why they have a hard time setting DCs.
The DCs don't change. They get based off of the average guy. Comparing to another user is only going to cause confusion because they're still stuck in a 3e mindset.

There is nothing wrong with 5e skills. There is something wrong with the way that people are viewing the situation.

[Naanomi]

I use passive skills for a lot of things and the 'expert' and their massive passive score preempts a lot of rolling anyways (without changing the DC)

[Chronos]

Quoth DivisibleByZero:

What did I say?
I said ignore the skill level of the user. So your scenario can't happen. Just like it can't happen in real life. If there's something that the average person fails at all of the time, then there aren't any experts that can make it every time.
That's a 3e mindset, and it is one of the things that made 3e's skill system horrible, because it is in no way realistic.
Huh? No, that happens all the time in the real world. For a simple example: Taking the derivative of a polynomial. You ask about 90% of people to do that, and they won't even have a clue where to start. Ask any college math, physics, or engineering major to do it, and they'll succeed every time. And that's not even a true expert. So, what's the DC for that question? You can't set the DC independently of who's attempting the skill, because bounded accuracy makes that impossible. If the DC is under 20, then the system fails, because now it becomes possible for the untrained person to do it. If the DC is over 12, then the system fails, because now it becomes possible for the expert to fail it. So you need to set that DC that never changes at some number that is less than 12 but greater than 20.

[hymer]

All these questions comparing one character to another only highlight the fact that people can't grasp this concept, which is why they have a hard time setting DCs.

That's not at all how I understand these questions. Here's the problem they raise:

Some people have great ability at climbing things. I couldn't climb most buildings without a ladder. But some people can do that, and they very rarely turn into mush on the sidewalk for it. They're ususally arrested for trespassing and get a round of applause by spontaneous audiences instead. So what's the DC for that climb? How can it be possible that those guys never fail, even with +17 (Expertise, max proficiency, and 20 in relevant ability score), when I could never do it with +0?

I'm not saying there's no answer, I'm just laying out the problem, here.

[E’Tallitnics]

Exactly.
All these questions comparing one character to another only highlight the fact that people can't grasp this concept, which is why they have a hard time setting DCs.
The DCs don't change. They get based off of the average guy. Comparing to another user is only going to cause confusion because they're still stuck in a 3e mindset.

There is nothing wrong with 5e skills. There is something wrong with the way that people are viewing the situation.


Huh? No, that happens all the time in the real world. For a simple example: Taking the derivative of a polynomial. You ask about 90% of people to do that, and they won't even have a clue where to start. Ask any college math, physics, or engineering major to do it, and they'll succeed every time. And that's not even a true expert. So, what's the DC for that question? You can't set the DC independently of who's attempting the skill, because bounded accuracy makes that impossible. If the DC is under 20, then the system fails, because now it becomes possible for the untrained person to do it. If the DC is over 12, then the system fails, because now it becomes possible for the expert to fail it. So you need to set that DC that never changes at some number that is less than 12 but greater than 20.
White room example, and a bad one at that because, “When would your example come up for a player in 5e?”

[pwykersotz]

Huh? No, that happens all the time in the real world. For a simple example: Taking the derivative of a polynomial. You ask about 90% of people to do that, and they won't even have a clue where to start. Ask any college math, physics, or engineering major to do it, and they'll succeed every time. And that's not even a true expert. So, what's the DC for that question? You can't set the DC independently of who's attempting the skill, because bounded accuracy makes that impossible. If the DC is under 20, then the system fails, because now it becomes possible for the untrained person to do it. If the DC is over 12, then the system fails, because now it becomes possible for the expert to fail it. So you need to set that DC that never changes at some number that is less than 12 but greater than 20.

I handle the check by making it easy, but by requiring proficiency in the skill to be able to roll it at all (or sometimes the DC is just higher for the non-proficient). I only do this for situations where a trained person finds something to be trivial, but an untrained person cannot be expected to do it at all. I took the inspiration from PHB 176 under Working Together where it mentions that non-proficient characters can't effectively assist proficient characters at certain tasks.

Keep in mind as well that for a skill roll to be involved there has to be some sort of challenge in place with a threat of failure or a reward for success. Is the professor factoring under arrow fire? Perhaps to open an escape route or vault? Skills aren't designed for tying your shoes or cooking dinner, they're designed for dangerous or uncertain conditions. Trying to apply them to daily life is more the role of a background.

[DivisibleByZero]

How can it be possible that those guys never fail, even with +17 (Expertise, max proficiency, and 20 in relevant ability score), when I could never do it with +0?

I'm not saying there's no answer, I'm just laying out the problem, here.

You could do it. It isn't impossible. But you know it isn't an area of competency for you, and you're afraid of the consequences of failure, so you don't even try.
Just like when people don't even attempt social rolls because they dumped Cha. It's not impossible, but they don't even try it.

[hymer]

There is no situation at all in your world that is less than 5% for people with no training or aptitude, but which an expert performs routinely? Surgery? Landing a large aircraft? Understanding and communicating the implications of an election in a foreign country?

[Chronos]

White room example, and a bad one at that because, “When would your example come up for a player in 5e?”
OK, I chose calculus just because it's something I'm personally familiar with. But if you don't like that, then change it to tightrope walking. I know I can't do that (I've tried it with a rope close to the ground, so I wasn't afraid of falling), but there are some people out there who do it routinely. It always has a risk associated with it, often has a reward, and realistically comes up in D&D adventures. What is the DC for walking a tightrope?

[ChubbyRain]

OK, I chose calculus just because it's something I'm personally familiar with. But if you don't like that, then change it to tightrope walking. I know I can't do that (I've tried it with a rope close to the ground, so I wasn't afraid of falling), but there are some people out there who do it routinely. It always has a risk associated with it, often has a reward, and realistically comes up in D&D adventures. What is the DC for walking a tightrope?

0

You don't walk across a tightrope, you climb across at half speed (or normal speed if a thief) instead of showing off and potentially falling to your death if you roll a 1.

Also, if the check would be automatic, then you don't roll at all. So the thief who is trained in acrobatics and has high Dex? Why make them roll, it serves no purpose.

Edit: Climbing isn't an athletics check unless the surface isn't fit for climbing... A rope is fit for climbing.

[E’Tallitnics]

OK, I chose calculus just because it's something I'm personally familiar with. But if you don't like that, then change it to tightrope walking. I know I can't do that (I've tried it with a rope close to the ground, so I wasn't afraid of falling), but there are some people out there who do it routinely. It always has a risk associated with it, often has a reward, and realistically comes up in D&D adventures. What is the DC for walking a tightrope?

DC 12. Sure you can be a show off (Expertise?) and try it vertically, one foot in front of the other. Or you can easily do it with legs draped over it dragging yourself hand over hand under the rope.

[mephnick]

I feel like a decently athletic person could fluke out and walk a tightrope in a dangerous situation, so I'd make it a 18-20. An expertise acrobat with 5 dex, expertise and say, reliable talent or some other feature, could do it without rolling all the time (which you would have to be able to do as a professional without killing yourself).

[ChubbyRain]

I feel like a decently athletic person could fluke out and walk a tightrope in a dangerous situation, so I'd make it a 18-20. An expertise acrobat with 5 dex, expertise and say, reliable talent or some other feature, could do it without rolling all the time (which you would have to be able to do as a professional without killing yourself).

20? Holy hell man that is a high damn DC for 5e.

[mephnick]

20? Holy hell man that is a high damn DC for 5e.

Do you feel like you could walk a circus tightrope 50% of the time without practice? I don't know you, but I doubt it.

[DivisibleByZero]

I feel like a decently athletic person could fluke out and walk a tightrope in a dangerous situation, so I'd make it a 18-20. An expertise acrobat with 5 dex, expertise and say, reliable talent or some other feature, could do it without rolling all the time (which you would have to be able to do as a professional without killing yourself).

I agree, and would also likely make it DC 18-20 acrobatics to walk across.
DC 12-14 athletics to pull yourself across with only arm strength while hanging freely.
DC 8 acrobatics or athletics to climb across upside down, legs wrapped around, pulling your body forward.

[Chronos]

Quoth ChubbyRain:

Also, if the check would be automatic, then you don't roll at all. So the thief who is trained in acrobatics and has high Dex? Why make them roll, it serves no purpose.
If by that you mean that your bonus plus one is at least equal to the DC, then yes, we're all agreed. If you mean anything other than that, though, then that means that you are in fact changing the DC for different characters, and you're not using bounded accuracy any more.

[pwykersotz]

If by that you mean that your bonus plus one is at least equal to the DC, then yes, we're all agreed. If you mean anything other than that, though, then that means that you are in fact changing the DC for different characters, and you're not using bounded accuracy any more.

Or, you establish minimum requirements for auto-success. The DC can be 15 across the board but have an auto-success clause without trouble.

Edit: As an example, in a game I ran a year back, my party had sliding stone doors that were very heavy. An 18 or higher strength could move the doors automatically, but lower than that and you needed strength checks.

[HarrisonF]

We have taken to using passive skills a lot. By RAW, every skill has a passive version, but we have definitely started enforcing it a lot more. From a narrative point of view, it works really well.

If your passive is high enough, you just don't need to roll. For example, climbing up a tricky rock face, if you have a passive athletics of 15 you just always can do it, otherwise you need to roll. This allows for the skilled rogue or the strong fighter to scale it every time, whereas the wimpy wizard will have difficulty. We also will vary DCs, rather than just always using cutoffs of 10, 15, 20.

As a DM when I am a bit unsure, I will actually randomize it using a d4 and a d3 (for positive or negative or same). For example, I think it is around a 15 (pretty hard), I then will roll a d3 to see if it is modified higher or lower, and then a d4 to see by how much. I then build it into the narrative as well. This results in a wider range of DCs, so people don't aim for the magic 15 or 20 for a passive skill.

[Slipperychicken]

I agree, and would also likely make it DC 18-20 acrobatics to walk across.
DC 12-14 athletics to pull yourself across with only arm strength while hanging freely.
DC 8 acrobatics or athletics to climb across upside down, legs wrapped around, pulling your body forward.

DC = "You made it" for securing yourself to the rope beforehand?

[JamminJay]

for the OP, I haven't felt anything was poor about the skill system. it is general enough you don't need a ton of skills to make a well rounded character, often times things come down to your base stat and how proficient you are with an item which can be bought with some training and a bit gold, or the DM can give as a reward instead as an alternate reward per DMG.

it sounds to me like your DM is too lenient on your players. in my campaigns and campaigns I have played in, your character never ever knows meta info about the enemies your fighting. being able to use an in game mechanic to determine the exact hp total of your enemy is the DM being too nice. the remedy for this is the DM sitting down at the start of the next game and saying, this floats similarly to a lead duck. I could see as people before me said, use a insight to see how trained someone looks based on how they walk and hold themselves which could also be a bluff check to fool someone, or medicine to determine how generally fit and healthy they look, with at least using a full round of study in the right situation. heck even knowing a stat for a creature, you may know that an elephant is stronger then a human, by a large amount, but you would never know it has a 23 STR even with a natural 20 on a D20 with max stats and prof. bonus. it's not that the things are unknowable. It's that the players see the game in a different light then the characters that are role-played.

as far as your situation with your roll, I would say yes it was a bit of a jerk move in some ways. the player in this instance should have said, can I roll insight to tell his HP. which you could have responded to, no your character wouldn't know that info, however you can roll an x skill and discover x after x rounds of study. Players shouldn't assume but DMs shouldn't penalize a player either just cause they don't like the way he/she plays. it should be a co operative game and it sounds to me like the group needs to discuss the house or homebrew rules, that to me seems to be your issue not the way skills work.

to the rest of the thread I agree about taking the character out of the equation and I will present this to my group. it is really the only logical way to look at things and hopefully will help us out with the arbitrary DC, even if we didn't have much problem with it anyway.

[JamminJay]

DC = "You made it" for securing yourself to the rope beforehand?

LOL no that was passing the save vs death, not the make it across the rope.

[mephnick]

DC = "You made it" for securing yourself to the rope beforehand?

Yeah, I'd make that an automatic success to get across, then determine how long it takes depending on walking/crawling etc (if it matters)

[Pex]

It's too dependent on the DM. That makes skill use great fun or frustrating annoying depending on the DM you play with. Some DMs think players can only do what the rules specifically allow them to, so in order to attempt the skill the DM will make the DC very high and/or give disadvantage and/or not even let you try if not proficient. Other DMs just take into account what the task is and set the DC based on that regardless of a character's total modifier so that those with higher modifiers are more likely to succeed. In a few cases just being proficient might be enough for auto-success but not proficient still allows you the roll.

If you play with more than one DM in separate campaigns the clash in effective different rules used will be frustrating. If you only have one DM you may not know any better. If you have the restrictive DM you may think the game is supposed to be so difficult to do anything. Too difficult you may refuse to play 5E altogether. If you have the more permissive DM you'll have fun, but if in the future you meet the restrictive DM you're going to think he's a donkey and may cause arguments.

You have little argument against the restrictive DM because lack of guidelines means his interpretations are just as valid. It's not House Rules. The DM would see no need to discuss before the campaign starts how he handles skills so you're stuck. You can vote with your feet and leave, but it's still at least one game session wasted.

[ChubbyRain]

Do you feel like you could walk a circus tightrope 50% of the time without practice? I don't know you, but I doubt it.

Me? No. But we aren't talking about real life people. We are talking about fantasy characters. Even the commoners in a fantasy game have a better chance to do this than I do... Because they are imaginary make believe characters.

People always forget about that little tidbit when talking about skills. This is also one of the problem with 5e skill system. It assumes normal people from the normal world is the baseline when we don't have normal people from the normal world using the rules.

It is another instance of forcing simulation upon nonmagical aspects of a fantasy game.

If you want a heroic fantasy gane then you have to allow the players to be heroic fantasy when they use their skills/abilities. If you want a simulation game then 5e skill system is on the right track.

As a DM you have the power to change the DCs. As such the skill system doesn't fit with the rest of the game because the base DCs are stupid high.

I prefer to play a fantasy game and that tends to be the assumption of people who sit down and okay D&D. To bad the devs can't get that through their head.

Circus tightrope? Outside of combat stealth or acrobatics DC 11. If you are being rushed or in combat then DC 16.

Expertise is just stupid good. Probably should either be integrated more into the system or removed entirely.

[mephnick]

Me? No. But we aren't talking about real life people. We are talking about fantasy characters. Even the commoners in a fantasy game have a better chance to do this than I do...

Says who? How talented are commoners in fantasy? As good as our professional athletes? Better? I was led to believe they were regular farmers and bankers.

[Ralanr]

Hmm. Increasing the DC by 5 in combat? That sounds like a pretty reasonable formula.

[pwykersotz]

It's too dependent on the DM. That makes skill use great fun or frustrating annoying depending on the DM you play with. Some DMs think players can only do what the rules specifically allow them to, so in order to attempt the skill the DM will make the DC very high and/or give disadvantage and/or not even let you try if not proficient. Other DMs just take into account what the task is and set the DC based on that regardless of a character's total modifier so that those with higher modifiers are more likely to succeed. In a few cases just being proficient might be enough for auto-success but not proficient still allows you the roll.

If you play with more than one DM in separate campaigns the clash in effective different rules used will be frustrating. If you only have one DM you may not know any better. If you have the restrictive DM you may think the game is supposed to be so difficult to do anything. Too difficult you may refuse to play 5E altogether. If you have the more permissive DM you'll have fun, but if in the future you meet the restrictive DM you're going to think he's a donkey and may cause arguments.

You have little argument against the restrictive DM because lack of guidelines means his interpretations are just as valid. It's not House Rules. The DM would see no need to discuss before the campaign starts how he handles skills so you're stuck. You can vote with your feet and leave, but it's still at least one game session wasted.

Uh...welcome to D&D? Everything has always been subjective. Rules get forgotten, tweaked, homebrewed, ignored, and all for a variety of reasons like the DM not caring, the players not caring, books being forgotten, speed of play, whim...

But skills don't inherently cause any of this. The cases you refer to involve players using the rules as ammunition against a tyrant GM. If it comes to that, just point to the intro of the PHB where it describes in no uncertain terms that this is a collaborative fun game. And if they won't look at that, I'm fairly certain they wouldn't care about whatever rules existed in any other game you might be playing either. I play with multiple DM's who use wildly different interpretations of the rules. They aren't wrong, like you said, because there's a certain level of subjectivity. But it's fun, not frustrating, to interact in their worlds. Differences spark ideas and inspiration instead of frustration. If you let them.

[mephnick]

In my experience, all the rules in 3.5 did nothing to prevent a bad DM from going against RAW and telling you to "deal with it."

That said, a little more direction would have been appreciated.

[Ninjadeadbeard]

I got a question for the good folks here, and I figured making a new Skill thread would be pointless:

What are people's experiences with the Alternate SKill systems in the DMG?

[Pex]

Uh...welcome to D&D? Everything has always been subjective. Rules get forgotten, tweaked, homebrewed, ignored, and all for a variety of reasons like the DM not caring, the players not caring, books being forgotten, speed of play, whim...

But skills don't inherently cause any of this. The cases you refer to involve players using the rules as ammunition against a tyrant GM. If it comes to that, just point to the intro of the PHB where it describes in no uncertain terms that this is a collaborative fun game. And if they won't look at that, I'm fairly certain they wouldn't care about whatever rules existed in any other game you might be playing either. I play with multiple DM's who use wildly different interpretations of the rules. They aren't wrong, like you said, because there's a certain level of subjectivity. But it's fun, not frustrating, to interact in their worlds. Differences spark ideas and inspiration instead of frustration. If you let them.

Uh...welcome to 3E and Pathfinder which has specific guidelines on what the DC is for skill tasks. Welcome to 4E which specifically recommends to the DM to say "yes". Tyrant DMs aren't necessarily vindictive. A few become them because they don't know any better. 2E encouraged them with the DMG teaching DMs to say no to everything. 5E encourages them with vague rules and emphasis on the "holiness" (my word) of Bounded Accuracy and low numbers for fear of letting players get away with doing stuff but with admitted irony that if it's magic go hog wild.

[Madeiner]

What is the DC for something Jonny Q Public fails at all of the time but a expert can totally make every time?

The game doesn't allow that, unfortunately.
This is purely a mathematic problem.
The size of the variable element (the d20) far outweigh the size of the fixed elements (bonuses).
If you want to create that situation, you have to adjust the math.

For example, you can quadruple the proficiency bonuses and then set appropriate DCs.
Or if you prefer, lower DC's and use a smaller die for the variable part.

Example:
a math professor has +2 int and +5 proficiency. Quadruple the proficiency value, so his modifier is now +22.
A generic intelligent person will have a +2 modifier and that's it.
The derivative math there would be now a DC 25-: an hard question, but the professor can do it all the time while under no stress (taking 10) but still can fail if under stress, such as combat (more realistically, let's say he's threatened instead: someone's pointing a gun at him)

The generic untrained person can never under any circumstances answer the question: it's beyond his possibilities, even if the tries for hours and takes 20.

You can do this by using a smaller die instead of a d20; say, a d6, and lowering DCs in accordance.

This actually models reality a lot better than standard d&d. However, it's also really boring in gameplay.
With that little variance, you either know the solution or don't. You know you don't have a chance to resolve that math problem because it's beyond you. You know that your friend who is very strong is the only one that can bash down that door. It's futile for you to even try, because your scores are in completely different leagues.
That's how reality is. A normal person cannot under any circumstance lift more than a body builder can.

Real life uses d4s when rolling for "things", along with an high proficiency bonus, but it's very boring in a game.

[HoarsHalberd]

Do you feel like you could walk a circus tightrope 50% of the time without practice? I don't know you, but I doubt it.

But on the flipside, it means the best possible human/elf tightrope artist in the world would fail 15% of the time without the assistance of magic or the rogue's supernatural ability to take ten. That is essentially the only big problem of 5e, bounded accuracy means that at the bare minimum, if something is possible but improbable for the below average (-1) then the best in the world is still going to fail 10% of the time.

[LucianoAr]

well, a way i thought of somewhat fixing it is with half skills.

if you got 6 skills originally, you can have 12 half skills instead, which give half the prof bonus, if you want to spread it out a bit (just fill half a circle on the sheet)

[pwykersotz]

Uh...welcome to 3E and Pathfinder which has specific guidelines on what the DC is for skill tasks. Welcome to 4E which specifically recommends to the DM to say "yes". Tyrant DMs aren't necessarily vindictive. A few become them because they don't know any better. 2E encouraged them with the DMG teaching DMs to say no to everything. 5E encourages them with vague rules and emphasis on the "holiness" (my word) of Bounded Accuracy and low numbers for fear of letting players get away with doing stuff but with admitted irony that if it's magic go hog wild.

Yes, and we saw what those games became. They worked out as written for a minority of people. Most of the 3.5 threads were about containing the brokenness, not using a workable system, and conflicts seemed to inevitably draw vast heated fights about RAW and its worth. Heck, I had/have a ton of fun with 3.5, but their subsystems built upon subsystems had to be run by several apps and programs for me to be able to apply them with reliability, as a player or a GM.

I don't think free-form aspects to RPG's do anything other than encourage creativity, myself. I don't think it's incumbent on a particular subsystem to encourage or discourage saying no. That's between players and GM as people, and within the overall framework of the rules, which is explicitly laid out to be inclusive and fantastic. There are many pages devoted to GM's and Players cooperating to build a world...if that's going to be forgotten, I don't think a tighter skill system will help.

[Pex]

Yes, and we saw what those games became. They worked out as written for a minority of people. Most of the 3.5 threads were about containing the brokenness, not using a workable system, and conflicts seemed to inevitably draw vast heated fights about RAW and its worth. Heck, I had/have a ton of fun with 3.5, but their subsystems built upon subsystems had to be run by several apps and programs for me to be able to apply them with reliability, as a player or a GM.

I don't think free-form aspects to RPG's do anything other than encourage creativity, myself. I don't think it's incumbent on a particular subsystem to encourage or discourage saying no. That's between players and GM as people, and within the overall framework of the rules, which is explicitly laid out to be inclusive and fantastic. There are many pages devoted to GM's and Players cooperating to build a world...if that's going to be forgotten, I don't think a tighter skill system will help.

If the DM goes tyrant with skills in 3E, Pathfinder, or 4E, the player will know right away. He can tell the DM to stop it and vote with his feet if that doesn't work, and the game backs him up. It is so obvious that for a DM wanting to change how skills work it becomes a House Rule and needs to tell the player before the game starts and then the player can make an informed decision to accept it or not. The player doesn't have that in 5E. He can still vote with his feet but no longer has game backing. The experienced gamer isn't going to care and can walk away easily. The new player who brings up his frustration will be shot down by being called a power gaming rollplaying munchkin. If he walks away he may be reluctant to play the game again with anyone thinking that's how the game is played. A new player in 3E, Pathfinder, or 4E who walks away does so knowing the DM was going against the rules, willing to try again.

Obviously this is not universal for every new player ever in existence past, present, and future, but that's just the trees. The forest is the 5E skill system facilitates tyrannical DMing.

[zinycor]

If the DM goes tyrant with skills in 3E, Pathfinder, or 4E, the player will know right away. He can tell the DM to stop it and vote with his feet if that doesn't work, and the game backs him up. It is so obvious that for a DM wanting to change how skills work it becomes a House Rule and needs to tell the player before the game starts and then the player can make an informed decision to accept it or not. The player doesn't have that in 5E. He can still vote with his feet but no longer has game backing. The experienced gamer isn't going to care and can walk away easily. The new player who brings up his frustration will be shot down by being called a power gaming rollplaying munchkin. If he walks away he may be reluctant to play the game again with anyone thinking that's how the game is played. A new player in 3E, Pathfinder, or 4E who walks away does so knowing the DM was going against the rules, willing to try again.

Obviously this is not universal for every new player ever in existence past, present, and future, but that's just the trees. The forest is the 5E skill system facilitates tyrannical DMing.

I walked away from PF 3e and 4e because there too many rules, that's why i love 5e. I fell that if your players are frustrated isn't because of the rules, but because they were not having fun, and that's what you should change by any means necessary.

[pwykersotz]

If the DM goes tyrant with skills in 3E, Pathfinder, or 4E, the player will know right away. He can tell the DM to stop it and vote with his feet if that doesn't work, and the game backs him up. It is so obvious that for a DM wanting to change how skills work it becomes a House Rule and needs to tell the player before the game starts and then the player can make an informed decision to accept it or not. The player doesn't have that in 5E. He can still vote with his feet but no longer has game backing. The experienced gamer isn't going to care and can walk away easily. The new player who brings up his frustration will be shot down by being called a power gaming rollplaying munchkin. If he walks away he may be reluctant to play the game again with anyone thinking that's how the game is played. A new player in 3E, Pathfinder, or 4E who walks away does so knowing the DM was going against the rules, willing to try again.

Obviously this is not universal for every new player ever in existence past, present, and future, but that's just the trees. The forest is the 5E skill system facilitates tyrannical DMing.

I would challenge the notion of abuses in earlier editions being visible early on, but I think that goes too far into the edition wars. I'll leave it at "I acknowledge your point and I disagree."

The other thing that the 5e skill system leads to is freedom of imagination and an acceptance that anything is possible. The openness which in your mind leaves it open to abuse is the same thing that opens it to improvisation and fun. To strictly codify the system is to necessarily take both away at once. Like I said, I was skeptical at first. But I've tried and enjoyed the system on all sides of the table. Thus far I've played for 5 GM's and run games myself for 4 different groups, and I haven't run into any troubles. Subjective, I know, but so is the other side.

If you've had enough direct experience with GM's who do this, I'll give you a Talakeal prize for terrible luck along with my sincere condolences. But from what I've seen, this kind of abuse is much more common on one-sided internet forum rants. Not that I don't acknowledge its existence, I did have one GM once who made me walk 30 minutes into the session. (A brand new player summoned Lolth to eat her when she nat 1'd a summon swarm...that you don't have to roll for...)

[ChubbyRain]

Says who? How talented are commoners in fantasy? As good as our professional athletes? Better? I was led to believe they were regular farmers and bankers.

They are as talented or talentless as the story needs them to be, no more and no less.

If to advance the story the players must defend a bunch if farmers as the farmers walk a tightrope then those farmers will be able to make it as long as the PCs hold off the enemy.

Perhaps they can't walk it and need PC assistance. This leads less to a combat role in the encounter and more of a chase scene or skill challenge.

In real life this isn't the case. Story and plot doesn't rule the universe in such a way.

People need to stop forgetting that the core of d&d is a story telling game (fantasy) not a simulation game.



Hmm. Increasing the DC by 5 in combat? That sounds like a pretty reasonable formula.

Maybe not combat really. Just if they have been attacked since their last turn or something is causing an issue (strong wind).

Anyways...

If a wizard can cast Meteor Swarm than my acrobatic thief should be able to tightrope walk while blindfolded, shackled, and dealing with hurricane winds without any damn problems.

The issue is that 5e skill system was designed with low levels in mind and forgot that high levels exist and that PCs are no longer mere normals once they hit level 2+.

We really need to detach all PCs from the common folks of D&D, like it or not but PCs are special and should transcend normal rules in more places than just magic.

[Tehnar]

The game doesn't allow that, unfortunately.
This is purely a mathematic problem.
The size of the variable element (the d20) far outweigh the size of the fixed elements (bonuses).
If you want to create that situation, you have to adjust the math.

For example, you can quadruple the proficiency bonuses and then set appropriate DCs.
Or if you prefer, lower DC's and use a smaller die for the variable part.

Example:
a math professor has +2 int and +5 proficiency. Quadruple the proficiency value, so his modifier is now +22.
A generic intelligent person will have a +2 modifier and that's it.
The derivative math there would be now a DC 25-: an hard question, but the professor can do it all the time while under no stress (taking 10) but still can fail if under stress, such as combat (more realistically, let's say he's threatened instead: someone's pointing a gun at him)

The generic untrained person can never under any circumstances answer the question: it's beyond his possibilities, even if the tries for hours and takes 20.

You can do this by using a smaller die instead of a d20; say, a d6, and lowering DCs in accordance.

This actually models reality a lot better than standard d&d. However, it's also really boring in gameplay.
With that little variance, you either know the solution or don't. You know you don't have a chance to resolve that math problem because it's beyond you. You know that your friend who is very strong is the only one that can bash down that door. It's futile for you to even try, because your scores are in completely different leagues.
That's how reality is. A normal person cannot under any circumstance lift more than a body builder can.

Real life uses d4s when rolling for "things", along with an high proficiency bonus, but it's very boring in a game.

That was my point, that with bounded accuracy in play you can not use the system to get the rolls you expect. Its due to random input factor from the d20 heavily outweights any modifiers characters have. To make the system work you have to have DM fiat.


Yes, and we saw what those games became. They worked out as written for a minority of people. Most of the 3.5 threads were about containing the brokenness, not using a workable system, and conflicts seemed to inevitably draw vast heated fights about RAW and its worth. Heck, I had/have a ton of fun with 3.5, but their subsystems built upon subsystems had to be run by several apps and programs for me to be able to apply them with reliability, as a player or a GM.


Actually it seems that a minority of people feel that way. There were threads about skill system abuses, but for the most part it worked as expected.

Sales data goes to support this. Sales of 5e PHB's to the end of april this year is probably less the 100k, the absolute maximum of all books is at 200k. This is worse then 4e release (and much worse then 3e release when 300k PHB copies were sold in the first month alone). Pathfinder keeps growing, and we all know they outsold 4e.

So it is false to claim that the majority of people are bothered enough with the 3e skill system, at the very least they are not bothered enough to make the switch to 5e.

[MrStabby]

Sales data goes to support this. Sales of all 5e books to the end of april this year is probably less the 100k, the absolute maximum at 200k. This is worse then 4e release (and much worse then 3e release when 300k PHB copies were sold in the first month alone). Pathfinder keeps growing, and we all know they outsold 4e.

So it is false to claim that the majority of people are bothered enough with the 3e skill system, at the very least they are not bothered enough to make the switch to 5e.

This would be interesting to take a look at. Where can I find these data? Do they publish them online somewhere?

It certainly runs contrary to what a lot of people tell me, that 5th is much better than 4th edition, but that needn't mean that these people have bought the books. Possibly if they were so badly burned on 4th edition they are wanting to hold back.

[Tehnar]

This would be interesting to take a look at. Where can I find these data? Do they publish them online somewhere?

It certainly runs contrary to what a lot of people tell me, that 5th is much better than 4th edition, but that needn't mean that these people have bought the books. Possibly if they were so badly burned on 4th edition they are wanting to hold back.

From the Forbes article: http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidewalt/2015/04/15/new-dungeons-dragons-fifth-edition/ it appears that sales are evenly split between retailers (Amazon) and book stores. This is actually pretty important, as it is a concrete value we can use unlike the rest of the propaganda.

Then you go to novel rank site, and look up how many sales each book has, for example the PHB:
http://www.novelrank.com/asin/0786965606

This gets you the data in terms of book sales, and it looks like the PHB has been sold on Amazon 40k times since its release to April (we will disregard May since data is yet incomplete). Since we know its a even split with other distribution channels, and we know that the PHB was 40% off on Amazon when it came out it is safe to say that Amazon sales hold about 50% of all PHB sales (but probably more), so total PHB worldwide sales are around 80,000.

We can do the same thing for the DMG and the MM (each sold about 10,000 units) for some 20,000 units sold. Thus I feel pretty confident when I say that total WotC 5e book sales (all distribution channels) are around 120,000 units, probably less due to large Amazon discounts offered.

[Sindeloke]

That was my point, that with bounded accuracy in play you can not use the system to get the rolls you expect. Its due to random input factor from the d20 heavily outweights any modifiers characters have. To make the system work you have to have DM fiat.

We've been using 2d10, it isn't terrible. You still get the possibility that an untrained PC can pick the lock/scale the cliff/seduce the Duke, so everyone is still willing to try, but the swinginess is reduced and highly skilled PCs are more reliable. It also helps to distribute Expertise more freely.

Honestly, I started out absolutely hating the system, built as it is on the concept that luck is more important than skill and training combined. But enough game time (and several of these skill threads) later, I've begun to prize the virtue of "there's always a chance at success" enough to work with it, and can see how "no truly reliable expert" is less a bug than an intentional tradeoff by WotC.

Of course, that doesn't fix the fact that "Nearly Impossible" might be "climbing a damp inverse incline with few handholds" in your universe (something a real-world expert climber would have a hard time with), and "traversing the slick underside of a glacial overhang in a pitch-black howling gale" in mine (something a real-world expert climber would die two seconds into, but a high-level fantasy hero in a world with spider climb should be able to do just to keep up).

[pwykersotz]

Actually it seems that a minority of people feel that way. There were threads about skill system abuses, but for the most part it worked as expected.

Sales data goes to support this. Sales of 5e PHB's to the end of april this year is probably less the 100k, the absolute maximum of all books is at 200k. This is worse then 4e release (and much worse then 3e release when 300k PHB copies were sold in the first month alone). Pathfinder keeps growing, and we all know they outsold 4e.

So it is false to claim that the majority of people are bothered enough with the 3e skill system, at the very least they are not bothered enough to make the switch to 5e.

Your point does nothing to actually address mine. Sales data has nothing to do with it. I didn't say other systems weren't popular, even more than 5e. I said that very few people used it as written. For tons of evidence, I direct your attention to the 3.5 board.

[mephnick]

Of course, that doesn't fix the fact that "Nearly Impossible" might be "climbing a damp inverse incline with few handholds" in your universe (something a real-world expert climber would have a hard time with), and "traversing the slick underside of a glacial overhang in a pitch-black howling gale" in mine (something a real-world expert climber would die two seconds into, but a high-level fantasy hero in a world with spider climb should be able to do just to keep up).

Yeah, that's still the main problem between tables. But as long as it's consistent at one table I think it's OK. I would guess the vast majority of players play at a single table. I think you quickly get a good feeling about what end of the "realism" spectrum your DM is going for. If you're worried about it when building a character you can always ask, like ever before.

[Vogonjeltz]

Huh? No, that happens all the time in the real world. For a simple example: Taking the derivative of a polynomial. You ask about 90% of people to do that, and they won't even have a clue where to start. Ask any college math, physics, or engineering major to do it, and they'll succeed every time. And that's not even a true expert. So, what's the DC for that question? You can't set the DC independently of who's attempting the skill, because bounded accuracy makes that impossible. If the DC is under 20, then the system fails, because now it becomes possible for the untrained person to do it. If the DC is over 12, then the system fails, because now it becomes possible for the expert to fail it. So you need to set that DC that never changes at some number that is less than 12 but greater than 20.

Incorrect.

From the PHB, page 174: "The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results."

By definition it's possible to have one character have to roll and another not, depending on the task at hand.

[Gwendol]

Yeah, that's very likely the major cause for confusion wrt 5e skills. There aren't set DC's anymore. They are set relative to the characters skill.

[Sindeloke]

Yeah, that's very likely the major cause for confusion wrt 5e skills. There aren't set DC's anymore. They are set relative to the characters skill.

Didn't we just have a whole bunch of people saying that the skills make perfect sense once you understand they aren't relative to the character's skill?

[Chronos]

Besides which, that amounts to saying that "bounded accuracy works just fine as long as you don't use it".

[Gwendol]

Yes, and yes. Or rather, the DC is set relative to the character's skill and the situation at hand. For situations where there is no consequence of failure, or the character can take their time, you don't have to roll. I'm thinking of the take 10 rule of 3.X:

Checks Without Rolls

A skill check represents an attempt to accomplish some goal, usually while under some sort of time pressure or distraction. Sometimes, though, a character can use a skill under more favorable conditions and eliminate the luck factor.

Taking 10

When your character is not being threatened or distracted, you may choose to take 10. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, calculate your result as if you had rolled a 10. For many routine tasks, taking 10 makes them automatically successful. Distractions or threats (such as combat) make it impossible for a character to take 10. In most cases, taking 10 is purely a safety measure —you know (or expect) that an average roll will succeed but fear that a poor roll might fail, so you elect to settle for the average roll (a 10). Taking 10 is especially useful in situations where a particularly high roll wouldn’t help.

Taking 20

When you have plenty of time (generally 2 minutes for a skill that can normally be checked in 1 round, one full-round action, or one standard action), you are faced with no threats or distractions, and the skill being attempted carries no penalties for failure, you can take 20. In other words, eventually you will get a 20 on 1d20 if you roll enough times. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, just calculate your result as if you had rolled a 20.

Taking 20 means you are trying until you get it right, and it assumes that you fail many times before succeeding. Taking 20 takes twenty times as long as making a single check would take.

In 5e, instead of taking 10 or 20, you simply don't roll.

As for something being hard or not for the PC to accomplish, I figure you may want to factor in previous experience: if it is a situation the PC has mastered before, he can rely on past experience to give him an edge.

[Tehnar]

What did I say?
I said ignore the skill level of the user. So your scenario can't happen. Just like it can't happen in real life. If there's something that the average person fails at all of the time, then there aren't any experts that can make it every time.
That's a 3e mindset, and it is one of the things that made 3e's skill system horrible, because it is in no way realistic.

But with all of that said, you just described Hard quite efficiently, so around 20 is just about right. Minimal chance of success for the layman, minimal chance of failure for the expert.


Yeah, that's very likely the major cause for confusion wrt 5e skills. There aren't set DC's anymore. They are set relative to the characters skill.


Incorrect.

From the PHB, page 174: "The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results."

By definition it's possible to have one character have to roll and another not, depending on the task at hand.


Yes, and yes. Or rather, the DC is set relative to the character's skill and the situation at hand. For situations where there is no consequence of failure, or the character can take their time, you don't have to roll. I'm thinking of the take 10 rule of 3.X:


In 5e, instead of taking 10 or 20, you simply don't roll.

As for something being hard or not for the PC to accomplish, I figure you may want to factor in previous experience: if it is a situation the PC has mastered before, he can rely on past experience to give him an edge.

Here we have three different posters, all proponents of 5e skill system, who use it in totally different, exclusive ways. That speaks volumes about how the 5e skill system is poorly designed.



Your point does nothing to actually address mine. Sales data has nothing to do with it. I didn't say other systems weren't popular, even more than 5e. I said that very few people used it as written. For tons of evidence, I direct your attention to the 3.5 board.

Actually it does. If the majority of people were unhappy with 3.x skill system we would see more migration to what you claim is a superior skill system, 5e. Since the sales demonstrate that the opposite is true, it follows that the majority of people were (are) happy with 3.x skill system, or at least not unhappy enough to make the switch.

Additionally I took a look at the 3.x boards on this forum, and on the first 3 pages there is no mention of broken skills or any skill discussion at all. Unlike this board where the skill discussion pops up every so often.

[pwykersotz]

Actually it does. If the majority of people were unhappy with 3.x skill system we would see more migration to what you claim is a superior skill system, 5e. Since the sales demonstrate that the opposite is true, it follows that the majority of people were (are) happy with 3.x skill system, or at least not unhappy enough to make the switch.

Additionally I took a look at the 3.x boards on this forum, and on the first 3 pages there is no mention of broken skills or any skill discussion at all. Unlike this board where the skill discussion pops up every so often.

I'm glad you are so certain of yourself that a single subsystem guides the entire sales ability of a game, and equally glad you are so happy to ignore the crux of my point which was "using the systems as written". Do a search for Diplomancer if you like. Or Jumplomancer. But I believe your arguments are deeply flawed and I'll not be replying further to you on this subject as I don't see anything meaningful coming out of this. :smallsmile:

[Pex]

The problems people have with 3E skills is in the minutiae not the overall system.

1) Particular classes not given enough skill points, not the concept of skill points existing.

2) Cross-class costs makes it virtually impossible for particular classes to be good at skills they should be or player wants to be, not the concept of needing to spend points.

3) Social skills having set DCs instead of being opposed rolls leading to misunderstanding and misuse of them, for example Diplomacy being used like Dominate Person because you can get a 30 Diplomacy roll, not that the social skills exist to help determine NPC reactions.

House Rule solutions

1) Classes get minimum 4 + Int modifier skills points per level.

2) No such thing as cross-class. Pathfinder goes further to give a bonus to a class skill rather than penalizing non-class skill and if you use traits makes it easy to make skills into class skills with a +1 trait bonus as a cherry on top.

3) Use opposed rolls. Skills rolled depend on situation. Sense Motive vs Diplomacy or even Diplomacy vs Diplomacy. Also learning to understand Diplomacy is not Dominate Person. An NPC can still refuse a request regardless of Diplomacy roll due to extenuating circumstances of adventure plot point. The high Diplomacy roll means the NPC isn't offended or suspicious of the request.

[mephnick]

The problems people have with 3E skills is in the minutiae not the overall system.


I'd say the way the whole system is designed is my problem, or at least the way it's applied in any game I've ever played. In the end it boils down to a "you pass every skill check ever with your chosen skill" or "you never pass a skill check with a skill you didn't max." The whole point of ranks is completely meaningless when you max out the few important skills you want and forget the rest. Because if one player's disable device is +35 and mine is +5, I'm never disabling any traps because they have to be set to the highest rank to give them a reason to even exist for that party, or be mentioned in the first place.

In a system where the guy with a good Investigation has a 85% chance of finding the trap, my 35% chance of finding the trap actually becomes important, even if it isn't the focus of my character. Hence, I prefer Bounded Accuracy.

[Pex]

I'd say the way the whole system is designed is my problem, or at least the way it's applied in any game I've ever played. In the end it boils down to a "you pass every skill check ever with your chosen skill" or "you never pass a skill check with a skill you didn't max." The whole point of ranks is completely meaningless when you max out the few important skills you want and forget the rest. Because if one player's disable device is +35 and mine is +5, I'm never disabling any traps because they have to be set to the highest rank to give them a reason to even exist for that party, or be mentioned in the first place.

In a system where the guy with a good Investigation has a 85% chance of finding the trap, my 35% chance of finding the trap actually becomes important, even if it isn't the focus of my character. Hence, I prefer Bounded Accuracy.

Ok, that becomes an issue of personal taste than an automatic 3E skill system being atrocious. (Not saying you claim atrociousness.) It leads to an issue that has been brought up before in past 5E skill threads. Some people like that a character is just that good at a task he can't fail. Possible in 3E accepting it happens at some level >> 1, impossible in 5E. Other people prefer there should always be a chance of failure.

The counter argument in 5E is that the ability to can't fail at a task is possible in 5E by virtue of never needing to roll in the first place. The roll is only needed when there's a chance of failure. The counter counter argument is that's the problem because it's DM fiat. Different DMs will have different tolerance levels of what a character can do without fail that would not need the roll. DMs and players will have different expectations on what is possible and cause arguments. I can attest to that actually happening in my (former) 5E group with the DM arguing with another player on the ability to raise and fix a broken mast on a ship - the DM refusing to accept it as possible at all while the player, who happens to be a physics teacher, showing exactly how it is possible. It's a symptom of one of the reasons why I quit the game, but I digress/rant.

[Icewraith]

Huh? No, that happens all the time in the real world. For a simple example: Taking the derivative of a polynomial. You ask about 90% of people to do that, and they won't even have a clue where to start. Ask any college math, physics, or engineering major to do it, and they'll succeed every time. And that's not even a true expert. So, what's the DC for that question? You can't set the DC independently of who's attempting the skill, because bounded accuracy makes that impossible. If the DC is under 20, then the system fails, because now it becomes possible for the untrained person to do it. If the DC is over 12, then the system fails, because now it becomes possible for the expert to fail it. So you need to set that DC that never changes at some number that is less than 12 but greater than 20.

In the real world, taking the derivative of a polynomial is a DC 5 Math check that you can only attempt if you're proficient.

In-game, the closest is probably Arcana. But the point is, there are some things that only a proficient character should be rolling on. Alternatively, when it comes to "random monster-specific knowledge that a trained character should know but an untrained character might have heard from a passing adventurer", proficient characters are rolling 5-10 and nonproficient characters are rolling 20-25.

When you set 5e DCs, you should have three things in mind-

1: How often do I want Joe Average (+0) to succeed at this task? (How hard is this?)
2: How often do I want Joe Proficient (+4) to succeed at this task? (How much does proficiency matter?)
3: How often should Maxstat Expertise the level 20 Bard (+...17?) succeed at this task? (How often should the best character possible succeed at this task, and does proficiency scale well enough to reflect a gap between high and low character levels?)

If that's too complicated consider this instead:

1: What are the consequences of failure?
2: Would it be appropriate for the character to fail in this situation without extremely bad luck?
3: Does the math currently reflect this? (If not, consider granting advantage).

As a side note, I prefer to increase DCs by 5 or grant advantage to the other side in an opposed check than to inflict disadvantage arbitrarily. The first two make success more difficult, the latter makes characters less heroic by robbing players of the good rolls (if they show up) they need to overcome poor situations.

RE: 3e/3.5e skills, the problems I have include, but are not limited to... the ridiculous scaling, keeping track of fiddly synergy bonuses, the large amount of record-keeping and number changing upon leveling, issues with changing intelligence scores, arbitrarily set DCs, poor class skill lists, low numbers of skill points per class, magic items of +skills...

If there was one thing I'd port over from the 3.5 skill system it would be a higher intelligence granting bonus skills. I might limit it to three (and give Wizards zero base skills), mainly to give people a reason to not dump INT.

[BRC]

I like a lot about the 5e skill system. I like how it integrates with backgrounds, I like how there is less fiddly math to deal with in general, and I think the simplified proficiency system works nicely. A lot of times, you think about things in terms of "My character is good at these things", not "My character is best at this, then slightly less good at that, and kind of okay at this".

That said, after character creation it becomes very hard to expand your repertoire of skills. If I decided that my character would want to learn, say, diplomacy, or Insight, the only way to do that is to take a feat (expensive), which gets me several skills, when I only want one. You can pick up tool proficiencies with months upon months of downtime.

3.5's system was deeply flawed, but you had the ability to invest and pick up some bonuses in skills you didn't already have. In 5e your skills are mostly locked in at character creation, unless you are willing to spend the (Very very valuable) feats. This can lead to feeling like you're trapped, unable to make up deficiencies in your character.

[Icewraith]

I like a lot about the 5e skill system. I like how it integrates with backgrounds, I like how there is less fiddly math to deal with in general, and I think the simplified proficiency system works nicely. A lot of times, you think about things in terms of "My character is good at these things", not "My character is best at this, then slightly less good at that, and kind of okay at this".

That said, after character creation it becomes very hard to expand your repertoire of skills. If I decided that my character would want to learn, say, diplomacy, or Insight, the only way to do that is to take a feat (expensive), which gets me several skills, when I only want one. You can pick up tool proficiencies with months upon months of downtime.

3.5's system was deeply flawed, but you had the ability to invest and pick up some bonuses in skills you didn't already have. In 5e your skills are mostly locked in at character creation, unless you are willing to spend the (Very very valuable) feats. This can lead to feeling like you're trapped, unable to make up deficiencies in your character.

I feel like regardless of your character progression there should be an additional bonus skill and ASI granted at CL 10, possibly one that you can't spend on a feat. It won't wreck feat-less games, it will encourage people to multiclass and not immediately go to boosting stats, and it will give people a bit more build flexibility. Feats are great, they're mostly balanced, they're useful... but they're TOO scarce.

[BRC]

I feel like regardless of your character progression there should be an additional bonus skill and ASI granted at CL 10, possibly one that you can't spend on a feat. It won't wreck feat-less games, it will encourage people to multiclass and not immediately go to boosting stats, and it will give people a bit more build flexibility. Feats are great, they're mostly balanced, they're useful... but they're TOO scarce.

I love feats as-is, and I wouldn't add more of them, the problem is that there exists a whole tier of "That would be nice" stuff that never gets touched.

Is the Feat crucial to your build? Get it.
Do you regularly use an ability score? Boost that to max.
Okay, NOW you can look into picking up feats that complement your build, or getting a save proficiency to shore up a weakness.

And somewhere below that is "Pick up some more skills maybe".

[Chronos]

Quoth Icewraith:


When you set 5e DCs, you should have three things in mind-

1: How often do I want Joe Average (+0) to succeed at this task? (How hard is this?)
2: How often do I want Joe Proficient (+4) to succeed at this task? (How much does proficiency matter?)
3: How often should Maxstat Expertise the level 20 Bard (+...17?) succeed at this task? (How often should the best character possible succeed at this task, and does proficiency scale well enough to reflect a gap between high and low character levels?)
And what do you do when those three things give you three very different answers?

[Vogonjeltz]

Yeah, that's very likely the major cause for confusion wrt 5e skills. There aren't set DC's anymore. They are set relative to the characters skill.

Well, I was actually going at Chronos's claim that a Mathematics major would somehow be able to fail what is a common knowledge question for them. The DM is the one who decides if there's a chance of failure or not. If they think a Mathematics major, by virtue of their training, would simply know the answer, then they do. If they think there's a possibility that person would forget, or not necessarily have studied that, then they set the DC for knowing the answer and make them roll.

So I'm saying the DCs to achieve tasks are static, but there's the possibility that, by virtue of who the person is, they don't even have to roll. I believe there are examples of this with doors that giants can enter freely, but which have astronomical DCs (72ish).


Here we have three different posters, all proponents of 5e skill system, who use it in totally different, exclusive ways. That speaks volumes about how the 5e skill system is poorly designed.

I'm pretty sure if we were all in a room (and thus able to converse in real time) we'd find our positions are actually fairly closely aligned. Mine is simply the obvious: The DM both determines if a roll is necessary, at all, and if so, what the DC and appropriate applicable skills are. That's an elegant design which imposes the fewest problems. (The opposite of the conclusion you drew).

[Kurald Galain]

I'm not surprised we're still seeing this topic come up regularly. In my view, the skill system is easily the weakest part of 5E.

Since it's a heroic fantasy game, I expect my character, if he trains for it, to be able to perform Olympic-level feats at moderate levels (and by that I mean "perform reliably", not "have a ~20% chance or if the DM feels like fiat'ing it"), and to easily surpass such IRL human feats at high levels. You know, like classic heroic fantasy characters such as Beowulf, Herakles, and Cuchulainn.

(and no, you don't get to redefine "Olympic" as "DC 12", nor do you get to redefine "reliably" as "with a one-in-three chance of failure").

In most heroic fantasy RPGs this is straightforward. In 5E, you can't even do it at level 20 (unless you're a rogue and the skill is dex-based). Heck, your character can't even reliably perform an average task until he's level thirteen (again, except rogues on dex-based skills), despite the fact that I know plenty of people who can reliably perform an average task in real life. Yeah, I think WOTC should have done better than that.

[Chronos]

Quoth Vogonjeltz:

Well, I was actually going at Chronos's claim that a Mathematics major would somehow be able to fail what is a common knowledge question for them. The DM is the one who decides if there's a chance of failure or not. If they think a Mathematics major, by virtue of their training, would simply know the answer, then they do.
And if the DM decides that, then they've effectively decided that the DC is less or equal to the character's skill mod +1. In which case most layfolk have a decent chance at success, too.

Oh, and you have a quote misattributed to me, there, too.

[Tehnar]

Well, I was actually going at Chronos's claim that a Mathematics major would somehow be able to fail what is a common knowledge question for them. The DM is the one who decides if there's a chance of failure or not. If they think a Mathematics major, by virtue of their training, would simply know the answer, then they do. If they think there's a possibility that person would forget, or not necessarily have studied that, then they set the DC for knowing the answer and make them roll.

So I'm saying the DCs to achieve tasks are static, but there's the possibility that, by virtue of who the person is, they don't even have to roll. I believe there are examples of this with doors that giants can enter freely, but which have astronomical DCs (72ish).



I'm pretty sure if we were all in a room (and thus able to converse in real time) we'd find our positions are actually fairly closely aligned. Mine is simply the obvious: The DM both determines if a roll is necessary, at all, and if so, what the DC and appropriate applicable skills are. That's an elegant design which imposes the fewest problems. (The opposite of the conclusion you drew).

Even assuming players are ok with DM fiat, and the DMs idea of a character closely aligns with a players idea of what a character can do, doesn't it strike you as needlessly complicated that you have to:

determine how hard a task is in general, for nonproficient characters and the like?
how hard a task it is for proficient characters?
is the task easy enough for proficient characters to autosucceed?
if not, do they get a bonus (or lower DC) then the first group?

Ill use this example to illustrate my point:

The characters crossed a chasm (by climbing) to lay a ambush for some goblins. They fail at setting up the ambush and now have to horde of goblins pursuing them. One of the options to get away from the horde is to jump he chasm (its not that far, lets say 25 feet), but alas it is not in any characters safe jumping distance (distance>characters STR score). How do players gauge their characters chances to jump the chasm (and thus escape from the goblins)?

Here we have no help from the rules, as no rules are provided other then ask the DM. To gauge their chances the players have to ask the DM.

These are the steps the DM has to make:
make a DC up on the spot and tell the players

OR

consult the character sheets of the players
decide the DC for each character, taking into account ability scores, proficiencies, backstory
inform each player individually what their character thinks his success rate will be

Doesn't that sound more complicated then needing to say or know nothing at all as the players already know that its a DC 25 jump check if they have a running start.

[Naanomi]

Can do it every time without fail = under your passive skill rating, not DM fiat beyond setting the skill DC to begin with (just like 3.X with arbitrary Circumstance penalties/bonuses and a fair number of undefined DCs as well)

[Elbeyon]

That's how I run it. If something is below the passive they don't need to make a check. My hero's aren't mostly dependent on luck to do something.

[Psikerlord]

There are no skill checks in 5e. There are only ability checks.

You want to climb that wall - str check please, if you have athletics or acrobatics, or the circus performer background, you can add your prof bonus. Convince the guard to let you past - cha check please, or maybe int check - you can choose - if you have persuasion you can get the bonus.

5e ability checks are adjudicated by the DM. They're flexible. Skills are bonuses you might get to add from time to time if it makes sense. I also like 13th Age, so in our game, sometimes your background will let you add the prof bonus, too, or give you adv on the ability check.

Works great ime. Anyone can try pretty much anything (obv some have a better chance at success, but generally, within the usual 10-20 DC range, everyone has some chance).

This is a very important improvement to the game from 3e/4e. You don't get players going, I dont have that skill so I wont bother trying. You want to give the players lots of choices, lots of approaches.

[Capac Amaru]

I was thinking about skills and expertise.

It seems ridiculous to me that a bard, rogue, or cleric could all end up with a higher Arcana skill than a 20th level wizard who has done nothing his whole life but study magic.

I was wondering if it would be OP to let every class take expertise in one of their skills.

This way every character has a chance to be 'best in their field', and it adds a little extra variation and flavour between characters (i.e. your ranger took expertise in stealth? I took survival!).

[Naanomi]

I was thinking about skills and expertise.

It seems ridiculous to me that a bard, rogue, or cleric could all end up with a higher Arcana skill than a 20th level wizard who has done nothing his whole life but study magic.

I was wondering if it would be OP to let every class take expertise in one of their skills.

This way every character has a chance to be 'best in their field', and it adds a little extra variation and flavour between characters (i.e. your ranger took expertise in stealth? I took survival!).
I am testing a house rule like this but choice of skill is based on subclass... Or everyone would just choose stealth or perception 90% of the time anyways and doesn't solve the rogue/arcana problem

[Capac Amaru]

I am testing a house rule like this but choice of skill is based on subclass... Or everyone would just choose stealth or perception 90% of the time anyways and doesn't solve the rogue/arcana problem

Doesn't solve it, but levels the playing field at least.

[Psikerlord]

I was thinking about skills and expertise.

It seems ridiculous to me that a bard, rogue, or cleric could all end up with a higher Arcana skill than a 20th level wizard who has done nothing his whole life but study magic.

I was wondering if it would be OP to let every class take expertise in one of their skills.

This way every character has a chance to be 'best in their field', and it adds a little extra variation and flavour between characters (i.e. your ranger took expertise in stealth? I took survival!).

I think maybe an amendment to the Skilled feat would work, instead of 3 new skills, you can alternatively choose to get 1 new skill & Expertise in 1 existing skill. A kind of Expertise Adept, similar to Martial Adept and Magic Initiate. Not as good as being a rogue/bard, but still handy.

[Capac Amaru]

I think maybe an amendment to the Skilled feat would work, instead of 3 new skills, you can alternatively choose to get 1 new skill & Expertise in 1 existing skill. A kind of Expertise Adept, similar to Martial Adept and Magic Initiate. Not as good as being a rogue/bard, but still handy.

As long as the feat is named 'Skill Monkey' I'm all for it. (Although I think it has the potential with rogue/monk/bard cross classing to have a character with expertise in every skill...)

[Ralanr]

I was thinking about skills and expertise.

It seems ridiculous to me that a bard, rogue, or cleric could all end up with a higher Arcana skill than a 20th level wizard who has done nothing his whole life but study magic.

I was wondering if it would be OP to let every class take expertise in one of their skills.

This way every character has a chance to be 'best in their field', and it adds a little extra variation and flavour between characters (i.e. your ranger took expertise in stealth? I took survival!).

My table does use a houserule to gain expertise as long as you have two permanent sources of the skill.

[Kurald Galain]

There are no skill checks in 5e. There are only ability checks.

Yes, and that's precisely the problem. Unlike almost every other RPG on the market, 5E hasn't bothered to implement a solid skill system, and as a result, you cannot play characters that are good at any skill (unless that skill happens to be weaponry or spellcasting).

Many players are moderately skilled at certain things in real life, and want to be able to play characters that are at least as good as they are (because, you know, it's heroic fantasy). That the system doesn't allow you to do that, is the reason why we frequently have threads like this, and why DMs commonly create houserules.

[Fwiffo86]

Sales data goes to support this. Sales of 5e PHB's to the end of april this year is probably less the 100k, the absolute maximum of all books is at 200k. This is worse then 4e release (and much worse then 3e release when 300k PHB copies were sold in the first month alone). Pathfinder keeps growing, and we all know they outsold 4e.


This proves nothing more than someone bought the book. They could have bought it, read it, and left it on a shelf the entire time. You, I, nor anyone else can prove they played a game or games without direct interviewing/polling/etc.



That said, after character creation it becomes very hard to expand your repertoire of skills. If I decided that my character would want to learn, say, diplomacy, or Insight, the only way to do that is to take a feat (expensive), which gets me several skills, when I only want one. You can pick up tool proficiencies with months upon months of downtime.

Downtime and 250 gold at most give a character proficiency in a skill, tool, or language. Neither of these is difficult. The feat is simply a faster way (and cheaper) to accomplish this.



Since it's a heroic fantasy game, I expect my character, if he trains for it, to be able to perform Olympic-level feats at moderate levels (and by that I mean "perform reliably", not "have a ~20% chance or if the DM feels like fiat'ing it"), and to easily surpass such IRL human feats at high levels. You know, like classic heroic fantasy characters such as Beowulf, Herakles, and Cuchulainn.

I thinks this is more indicative of player expectation and not a flaw of the system. What you expect the game to be or more accurately how you conceptualize "Heroic Fantasy" is purely subjective.

[ChubbyRain]

Yes, and that's precisely the problem. Unlike almost every other RPG on the market, 5E hasn't bothered to implement a solid skill system, and as a result, you cannot play characters that are good at any skill (unless that skill happens to be weaponry or spellcasting).

Many players are moderately skilled at certain things in real life, and want to be able to play characters that are at least as good as they are (because, you know, it's heroic fantasy). That the system doesn't allow you to do that, is the reason why we frequently have threads like this, and why DMs commonly create houserules.

It has blown my mind ever since 2e that D&D ignores skills. Like, there are rules sure, but it is mostly just thrown together to appease the players just enough.

D&D wants a general skill system but they work it in as a specific skill system.

What they get is a generally specific skill system that just leaves so much hanging.

A DM shouldn't have to houserule to make rules, just to tweak rules. Eh, more or less at least.

It's one thing to house rule in a Mech Suit but to house rule a core rule such as skills? That's sad.


This proves nothing more than someone bought the book. They could have bought it, read it, and left it on a shelf the entire time. You, I, nor anyone else can prove they played a game or games without direct interviewing/polling/etc.


I'm not even sure a lot of people on forums have played 5e, sure they know the rules and stuff (by reading the books) but... I get the idea that a lot of the time that is all they are going off and not actual game play...

I know that's terrible and I don't really care, entertainment is entertainment, but I wonder sometimes...

[Chronos]

Quoth Naanomi:

Can do it every time without fail = under your passive skill rating, not DM fiat beyond setting the skill DC to begin with (just like 3.X with arbitrary Circumstance penalties/bonuses and a fair number of undefined DCs as well)
So, just what is the rogue's Reliable Talent ability for? If the DC is below your passive score, then you'd never roll under that houserule, and if the DC is above your passive score, then Reliable Talent would just turn a fail into a fail.

[Naanomi]

So, just what is the rogue's Reliable Talent ability for? If the DC is below your passive score, then you'd never roll under that houserule, and if the DC is above your passive score, then Reliable Talent would just turn a fail into a fail.
It is a fair point, though it still kicks in on disadvantaged rolls (-5 passive rating) that would still succeed on a 10

[Vogonjeltz]

And if the DM decides that, then they've effectively decided that the DC is less or equal to the character's skill mod +1. In which case most layfolk have a decent chance at success, too.

Oh, and you have a quote misattributed to me, there, too.

Oops, freudian typo, I was thinking of your post. However no, that's not what is occurring there. There is no DC if there's no risk of failure. You can say it's tantamount to that effect, but that isn't what is happening mechanically.


Even assuming players are ok with DM fiat, and the DMs idea of a character closely aligns with a players idea of what a character can do, doesn't it strike you as needlessly complicated that you have to:

I don't think we're talking about playing the same game. In the 5th edition that is exactly how the game works. The player only gets to say what actions they are attempting, it is entirely within the DMs narrative purview to say what occurs and how. The players conception of what their character can do isn't relevant to what they can actually do.

So if players don't like how the game works, tough noogies, find another game to play.

In regards to the example about jumping further than the player knows they are capable of jumping...you have your answer. The distance is greater than the character knows they are capable of jumping, so they're taking their chances if they try it.

I think, based on your post, what you really want is meta-game knowledge telling you exactly when a player will succeed or fail and to tie the hands of the DM entirely with predetermined rules mechanics. And that's fine, but the game you want for that is the 3.5 edition of D&D, not 5th.

And no, I don't think it's more complicated for the DM to make an on the spot judgment call than it is to consult some algebraic equation (which was the 3.5 method).

[Icewraith]

And what do you do when those three things give you three very different answers?

Well if proficiency makes a big enough difference, I can assign proficient and nonproficient characters different DCs, or only allow proficient characters to roll, as in the math example above. The breakpoints in my example should give you a better idea of what DC is appropriate when.

DC30- the best character that could possibly do this has a 60% chance of failure. A 20th level non-expertise class with a max ability modifier has a 90% chance of failure. Everyone else needs a natural 20.

DC 25- The best character ever has a 35% chance of failure. Non-expertise classes have a 65% chance of failure. Everyone else still needs a 20.

DC 20- Expertise max level character has a 10% failure chance. Non-expertise classes have a 35% failure rate. Low-level proficient characters might succeed as little as 20% of the time. Joe average STILL needs a 20.

DC 15 - Expertise never fails, Non-expertise fails 10% of the time. Low-level proficient characters fail half the time. Joe average fails 70% of the time.

DC 10 - Low-level proficient characters fail 25% of the time, Joe average fails 45% of the time.

DC 5 - Low-level proficient characters autosucceed unless they have a 13 or lower stat in the related ability. Joe average fails 20% of the time.

Don't use DC 15 unless it's a task you'd expect a low-level proficient character with a 14 ability to fail half the time. DC 15 is HARD. Anything above DC 19 is all luck for the average person.

Between the ability to set different DCs for nonproficient characters, to allow or disallow rolling, and advantage/disadvantage, there are plenty of tools for the DM to use when it comes to skills.

[Elbeyon]

So entirely dm flat? Might as well just go freeform and base things off a dice and a person's backstory. Nothing wrong with that, but it in no way resembles a fixed dc skill system.

[Hawkstar]

Yes, and that's precisely the problem. Unlike almost every other RPG on the market, 5E hasn't bothered to implement a solid skill system, and as a result, you cannot play characters that are good at any skill (unless that skill happens to be weaponry or spellcasting).

Many players are moderately skilled at certain things in real life, and want to be able to play characters that are at least as good as they are (because, you know, it's heroic fantasy). That the system doesn't allow you to do that, is the reason why we frequently have threads like this, and why DMs commonly create houserules.
My question is "What sort of skills are actually needed, as skills, and are functional?" Every time I see this topic come up, everyone devolves to stupid technical examples of skills that the system doesn't care to handle (Such as Advanced Mathematics), without actually providing relevant examples.

[Psikerlord]

Yes, and that's precisely the problem. Unlike almost every other RPG on the market, 5E hasn't bothered to implement a solid skill system, and as a result, you cannot play characters that are good at any skill (unless that skill happens to be weaponry or spellcasting).

Many players are moderately skilled at certain things in real life, and want to be able to play characters that are at least as good as they are (because, you know, it's heroic fantasy). That the system doesn't allow you to do that, is the reason why we frequently have threads like this, and why DMs commonly create houserules.

Depends on what you mean by "good". I think a high stat +4 say, and prof, is enough to be good. With expertise you become an expert.

I do believe however the Skilled Feat should have an option to gain Expertise in skill instead of gaining 3 new skills, as indicated earlier. PCs can pick up a bit of battlemaster maneuvers with a feat, or spell casting with a feat. They should also be able to pick up a bit of expertise. Of course this is a very easy houserule a DM can implement. In games where there is no multiclassing in particular, the ability for other PCs to pick up a bit of expertise is fun to have.

[Chronos]

Quoth Icewraith:

Well if proficiency makes a big enough difference, I can assign proficient and nonproficient characters different DCs, or only allow proficient characters to roll, as in the math example above. The breakpoints in my example should give you a better idea of what DC is appropriate when.
In which case we're back to "bounded accuracy works fine as long as you don't use it".

[Kurald Galain]

My question is "What sort of skills are actually needed, as skills, and are functional?" Every time I see this topic come up, everyone devolves to stupid technical examples of skills that the system doesn't care to handle (Such as Advanced Mathematics), without actually providing relevant examples.
Good question. For instance, let's look at climbing.

What's the DC on climbing a wall? If it's DC 10, then that means the average untrained wizard has a better-than-average chance of making it up a wall on his first try. If it's DC 15, then that means that a moderate-level ranger has trouble climbing walls. Bear in mind that anyone who does Parkour in real life routinely climbs walls with basically no chance of failure, so it strikes me that a mid-level character should be able to do that. Turns out that by the rules, he can't.

Now what's the DC on an ice wall? Bear in mind that real-life experts (who clearly aren't 18th level rogues) can reliably climb ice walls, too. By the rules, they can't do that either.



Depends on what you mean by "good".
By "good" I mean that a character can reliably perform an average task. By "expert" I mean that a character can reliably perform a hard task (because that's what experts do in real life, as well).


I think a high stat +4 say, and prof, is enough to be good. With expertise you become an expert.
Well, the difference of opinion here is that you're assuming the numbers the game gives are correct, and putting labels like "good" and "expert" on them; whereas I'm looking at what the terms "good" and "expert" generally mean, and using math to find out what the numbers should be.

Because it turns out that your "expert" has a 45% failure rate on hard tasks. Personally I wouldn't call anyone an expert if he fails half the time. Conversely, my kind of expert cannot be created by the rules, even though such experts are not uncommon in real life.



Well if proficiency makes a big enough difference, I can assign proficient and nonproficient characters different DCs, or only allow proficient characters to roll, as in the math example above. The breakpoints in my example should give you a better idea of what DC is appropriate when.
Two problems here. First, your examples assume max level; most of the game doesn't play at max level, and most campaigns never reach max level. Second, you're looking only at primary ability scores (so dex skills for rogues, int skills for wizards, and so forth). Most skills in the game don't key off your primary ability.



Don't use DC 15 unless it's a task you'd expect a low-level proficient character with a 14 ability to fail half the time. DC 15 is HARD. Anything above DC 19 is all luck for the average person.
Don't use DC 15 unless it's a task you'd expect an average nobody (or couch potato wizard PC) to succeed 30% of the time. DC 15 is EASY. Anything below DC 21 is easily performed by anyone in the world, through repeating the task until they get it right.



Between the ability to set different DCs for nonproficient characters, to allow or disallow rolling, and advantage/disadvantage, there are plenty of tools for the DM to use when it comes to skills.
Those aren't tools. Those are an admission that the tools don't work, so the DM has to make something up from whole cloth. As Chronos puts it, "bounded accuracy works fine as long as you don't use it". As The Giant puts it, "I want tools to use in the game, not a blank check to do what I want. I can already do what I want."

[pwykersotz]

Don't use DC 15 unless it's a task you'd expect an average nobody (or couch potato wizard PC) to succeed 30% of the time. DC 15 is EASY. Anything below DC 21 is easily performed by anyone in the world, through repeating the task until they get it right.

This is a fundamental disconnect in how the 5e skill system is designed to work and why rolls are made, as this directly opposes what is written in the books. I think we all get that you don't like it, but this is like an infomercial where you pour hot cheese on the floor instead of on your food and then cry "There must be a better way!" It's a little baffling how completely you're not even trying to use it correctly.

Are you even willing to be convinced that the skill system is usable, or are you just trying to convince others that its not?

[ChubbyRain]

I think I'm going to run a game, skill heavy type game, where the following is used.


Skill Without Proficiency and class has prof in saving throws of that skill's ability score = Ability Modifier + Prof Bonus
Skill Proficiency = Ability Modifier + (2*Prof Bonus)

Skill without proficiency and the class doesn't give you prof in that ability score saving throw = Ability modifier + 1/2 Prof Bonus.

I'll leave the DCs as they are in the book but assume the players are heroic fantasy characters and not normal people (as one should).

I think the overall increase in skill ability will lead to characters actually being able to handle skill checks more reliably.

Also Expertise from Bard/Rogue just gives you additional skill proficiency.

Bard's Jack of All Trades... Allows you to help another even if you aren't trained in a skill. Probably will have it do something else.

Probably will have this ran with some pregens, I'm feeling Fighter, Cleric, Sorcerer, and Monk.

[pwykersotz]

I think I'm going to run a game, skill heavy type game, where the following is used.


Skill Without Proficiency and class has prof in saving throws of that skill's ability score = Ability Modifier + Prof Bonus
Skill Proficiency = Ability Modifier + (2*Prof Bonus)

Skill without proficiency and the class doesn't give you prof in that ability score saving throw = Ability modifier + 1/2 Prof Bonus.

I'll leave the DCs as they are in the book but assume the players are heroic fantasy characters and not normal people (as one should).

I think the overall increase in skill ability will lead to characters actually being able to handle skill checks more reliably.

Also Expertise from Bard/Rogue just gives you additional skill proficiency.

Bard's Jack of All Trades... Allows you to help another even if you aren't trained in a skill. Probably will have it do something else.

Probably will have this ran with some pregens, I'm feeling Fighter, Cleric, Sorcerer, and Monk.

Question: Why not just lower all DC's by 5-10? I thought you were trying to increase the gap between trained and untrained until I saw your clause giving half proficiency to the untrained. Are you trying to keep the work on the player side so the GM side of the calculations stays the same?

[ChubbyRain]

Question: Why not just lower all DC's by 5-10? I thought you were trying to increase the gap between trained and untrained until I saw your clause giving half proficiency to the untrained. Are you trying to keep the work on the player side so the GM side of the calculations stays the same?

Lowering DCs mean that the players and commoners can do the same thing reliably.

I want heroic fantasy heroes/villains to be able to do things that commoners can't.... Well things that commoners can't do as easily.

Dunking a basketball is the same task for me as it is for Lebron James. However since I'm a commoner with a background in basketball but no current skill that DC 10 is harder for me to get than Lebron James (who is a PC).

It is exactly the same task but he is just that damn good and I'm not.

However if we brought the basketball rim down to say... 8 feet, then I could easily dunk the ball too and it cheapens the ability to dunk the ball. Who would want to watch the NBA with an 8' rim? People would freak the hell out and boycott the game (players and viewers) till it was back up.

Don't make easy be the norm for PCs. Let harder be the norm so that there is a distinction between the commoners (me) and the heroic fantasy player characters (Lebron).

[pwykersotz]

Lowering DCs mean that the players and commoners can do the same thing reliably.

I want heroic fantasy heroes/villains to be able to do things that commoners can't.... Well things that commoners can't do as easily.

Dunking a basketball is the same task for me as it is for Lebron James. However since I'm a commoner with a background in basketball but no current skill that DC 10 is harder for me to get than Lebron James (who is a PC).

It is exactly the same task but he is just that damn good and I'm not.

However if we brought the basketball rim down to say... 8 feet, then I could easily dunk the ball too and it cheapens the ability to dunk the ball. Who would want to watch the NBA with an 8' rim? People would freak the hell out and boycott the game (players and viewers) till it was back up.

Don't make easy be the norm for PCs. Let harder be the norm so that there is a distinction between the commoners (me) and the heroic fantasy player characters (Lebron).

I gotcha. I didn't realize you were using the "commoner scale". Carry on. :smallsmile:

[ChubbyRain]

I gotcha. I didn't realize you were using the "commoner scale". Carry on. :smallsmile:

As a DM I like to use the same basic rules for NPC/Monsters as the PCs do. However I don't like everyone being restrained to the same expectations.

A commoner (or some merchant or crafter) shouldn't be expected to work on the same level as a PC or certain Monsters. Doing so just kinda cheapens what those PCs and Monsters can do. If all commoners can reliably make DC 13, then anytime a player hits DC 13 or lower they aren't really fantasy heroes anymore... They are fantasy commoners.

Sure some NPCs can be special in an area in which the PCs are not, usually in such a way that helps the PCs if they wish, but they would never be able to outshine the PCs. The legendary blacksmith Ashley Embers can be special, but she isn't the protagonist of the game, her only reason to shine is so that the PCs can shine even brighter.

Yes, Ashley Embers is an NPC that has actually been a blacksmith in my games since 2e :P.

[Icewraith]

Good question. For instance, let's look at climbing.

What's the DC on climbing a wall? If it's DC 10, then that means the average untrained wizard has a better-than-average chance of making it up a wall on his first try. If it's DC 15, then that means that a moderate-level ranger has trouble climbing walls. Bear in mind that anyone who does Parkour in real life routinely climbs walls with basically no chance of failure, so it strikes me that a mid-level character should be able to do that. Turns out that by the rules, he can't.

Now what's the DC on an ice wall? Bear in mind that real-life experts (who clearly aren't 18th level rogues) can reliably climb ice walls, too. By the rules, they can't do that either.



By "good" I mean that a character can reliably perform an average task. By "expert" I mean that a character can reliably perform a hard task (because that's what experts do in real life, as well).


Well, the difference of opinion here is that you're assuming the numbers the game gives are correct, and putting labels like "good" and "expert" on them; whereas I'm looking at what the terms "good" and "expert" generally mean, and using math to find out what the numbers should be.

Because it turns out that your "expert" has a 45% failure rate on hard tasks. Personally I wouldn't call anyone an expert if he fails half the time. Conversely, my kind of expert cannot be created by the rules, even though such experts are not uncommon in real life.



Two problems here. First, your examples assume max level; most of the game doesn't play at max level, and most campaigns never reach max level. Second, you're looking only at primary ability scores (so dex skills for rogues, int skills for wizards, and so forth). Most skills in the game don't key off your primary ability.


Don't use DC 15 unless it's a task you'd expect an average nobody (or couch potato wizard PC) to succeed 30% of the time. DC 15 is EASY. Anything below DC 21 is easily performed by anyone in the world, through repeating the task until they get it right.


Those aren't tools. Those are an admission that the tools don't work, so the DM has to make something up from whole cloth. As Chronos puts it, "bounded accuracy works fine as long as you don't use it". As The Giant puts it, "I want tools to use in the game, not a blank check to do what I want. I can already do what I want."

Don't bother rolling if the consequences for failure are so low that you can repeat the task until you get it right. Anything important enough to roll for that Joe Average fails 70% of the time is not easy. If there's no time pressure or little to no consequences for failure, don't roll for it. If the task isn't something that a nonproficient character should be able to do, don't let them roll, or do something else with the roll. If the bard is proficient in performance but not the lute, they still get disqualified if they try to participate in the Magic City Lute Tournament (the bard can still make a good impression on the crowd with a solid perform check, but won't win any prizes).

If the failure rate for a given proficient character seems too high for a given task, bounded accuracy isn't broken you're just setting the DC too high. If the failure rate for Joe N. Average for the same task seems too low, bounded accuracy isn't broken, you shouldn't be letting the character roll in the first place. Or, you should be willing to give a nonproficient character a different (higher) DC. Or you can require multiple successes at a lower DC for lengthy or multi-step tasks.

If you want a wider gulf between nonproficient and proficient characters, advantage/disadvantage will increase the gap by 5 or 10 on the d20. However, at that point one side is usually autosucceeding and one is autofailing anyways, so just cut to the chase.

I gave the success rates for the characters I did because those illustrate the limits of the system. Most of the arguments against bounded accuracy involve the gap between proficient and nonproficient characters being too small, the gap between high and low level proficient characters being too small, or expertise making too big a difference.

Edit: There's dunking a basketball (do you have enough height+vertical leap and hand-eye coordination to dunk), and then there's dunking a basketball while being guarded in a high-stakes professional basketball game. One is a check against a static DC and the other one is an opposed check, arguably with a minimum success level. Basketball is weird enough you could also argue that most of the checks are DEX (Athletics) unless you want to introduce sports-based tool proficiencies. However, is anyone really going to get bent out of shape if I was DMing and ruled that unless your character is a professional NBA player and/or have exceptional physical stats and athletics proficiency, LeBron is going to autowin against you if you play him one-on-one?

Double Edit: Exactly what commoners are reliably hitting DC 13? And what exactly is your definition of reliable? A ~50% success rate is not reliable! A 50% success rate is a coin toss. Anything you can do reliably really shouldn't be handled by a dice roll, because you can do it reliably.

[Xetheral]

If the failure rate for a given proficient character seems too high for a given task, bounded accuracy isn't broken you're just setting the DC too high. If the failure rate for Joe N. Average for the same task seems too low, bounded accuracy isn't broken, you shouldn't be letting the character roll in the first place. Or, you should be willing to give a nonproficient character a different (higher) DC.

Out of curiosity, is there anything in the rules that permits allowing some characters to roll and not others? Similarly, is there anything in the rules that permits setting different DCs for different characters? Or are these houserules you've added to make the skill system work better? (I'm curious because I'm trying to figure out what I want my own houserules to be.)

[Vogonjeltz]

So entirely dm flat? Might as well just go freeform and base things off a dice and a person's backstory. Nothing wrong with that, but it in no way resembles a fixed dc skill system.

Not entirely, just the question of if chance plays a role or not. I'm not sure why this is surprising to anyone, the entire game is DM fiat to begin with.

[Xetheral]

Not entirely, just the question of if chance plays a role or not. I'm not sure why this is surprising to anyone, the entire game is DM fiat to begin with.

The ability to change anything and everything does not make D&D 5E entirely DM fiat. There are hundreds of pages of rulebooks, after all.

[ChubbyRain]

The ability to change anything and everything does not make D&D 5E entirely DM fiat. There are hundreds of pages of rulebooks, after all.

Yes and no.

Yes there are a hundred pages of rules.

No, the game still falls on DM fiat for a lot of the rules. Like the skill system or lack of skill system.

I can have 1.2 million pages of rules and yet have the game revolve around DM fiat.

[Kurald Galain]

the entire game is DM fiat to begin with.

Why on earth would anyone pay for a game that is entirely DM fiat?

[Madeiner]

I too agree that the skill system is also not optimal.
Can we create a new thread and try to discuss a new, better, homebrew skill system instead? I'd really like that!

[Hawkstar]

Don't use DC 15 unless it's a task you'd expect an average nobody (or couch potato wizard PC) to succeed 30% of the time. DC 15 is EASY. Anything below DC 21 is easily performed by anyone in the world, through repeating the task until they get it right.Sorry, re-checks aren't really a thing in 5e, and a failure rate of 70% is NOT Easy.
First off -
1. Couch Potato PCs are not a thing, even if they're STR and DEX 8 and nonproficient in all skills. The whole damn idea behind the game is that player characters are competent, and have a chance of succeeding. D&D 5e is NOT a system for telling players "No, your character can't do that. Stick to your class features"
2. Sufficiently-motivated commoners are competent. Most see that 70% failure chance and nope off.

[Kurald Galain]

1. Couch Potato PCs are not a thing, even if they're STR and DEX 8 and nonproficient in all skills.
Funny, we had that argument before, where someone pointed out that all PCs are fit, strong and agile regardless of what their str, dex, and con are. It boggles the mind, then, what those stats are actually for...

...of course, the argument doesn't make sense. Your dex determines how agile you are (because that's what the stat means), and a character with low dex isn't agile. So yes, it is quite possible to play a non-fit character, and indeed this is fitting for certain archetypes. It's rather silly that you'd have to break down the system even further in order to save the dysfunctional skill system :smallbiggrin:

[Xetheral]

Sorry, re-checks aren't really a thing in 5e...

Are you sure about this? I thought rechecks were normally permitted?

[ChubbyRain]

Why on earth would anyone pay for a game that is entirely DM fiat?

They didn't know just how much they would be getting with the complete rules, bought the book, and realized they naught a book of DM fiat?


Are you sure about this? I thought rechecks were normally permitted?

Up to the DM.

Which is why the phrase Fail Forward is key, so you don't waste time failing over and over.

[Icewraith]

Out of curiosity, is there anything in the rules that permits allowing some characters to roll and not others? Similarly, is there anything in the rules that permits setting different DCs for different characters? Or are these houserules you've added to make the skill system work better? (I'm curious because I'm trying to figure out what I want my own houserules to be.)

A couple places, but I am AFB so this is from memory:

1- The DM has the power to tell players they succeed or fail without a roll, if the DM decides a roll is not appropriate. The DM can also consider raw ability scores in the case of opposed contests, there's an example in the book regarding armwrestling. If a player claims they're doing something, rolls a 20, and claims they therefore have done it, the DM has always been free to override the player in any edition, because the DM determines the effects of rolls (including "nothing happens"), not players.

2- The DM has the ability to grant individual characters advantage and disadvantage based on the circumstances.

3- Advantage and disadvantage are rule of thumbed as +/-5, increasing a DC by 5 is the same as penalizing a roll by 5. Increasing a DC by 5 is actually more merciful than inflicting disadvantage because disadvantage will rob a lucky player of a roll that might have saved their bacon.

Setting different DCs is also because proficient and nonproficient characters are usually trying to do different things when it comes to knowledge. Proficient characters are trying to remember everything they know about a subject in a short amount of time and nonproficient characters are tying to remember everything useful they've heard on the subject from someone who probably knows what they're talking about.

Put a different way, proficient characters are trying to remember things they know and have studied. Nonproficient characters are rolling a much more difficult check to see whether or not they've heard anything useful (The only thing my swordmaster told me about dragons was not to fight one if I can help it. The stable boy swore they were allergic to yams, but he might have been making fun of the Duchess of Gort-Swindley, who was visiting at the time), whether or not they've remembered it (My uncle was a wizard, and I had a look at his books, one of them was "Red Dragons and Where to Find Them", but I really only remember the pretty pictures), and whether or not it's actually true (Red Dragons can only see you if you move, and if you beat one at chess he has to swap hearts with you).

Edit: In more extreme cases of skill checks, you only get one shot to jump across that chasm before the goblins catch up with you, you only have one good shot to convince the duchess to fund your expedition without accidentally offending her, once you've haggled with a particular merchant they won't budge from their final offer, if you've forgotten everything from "Ancient Dragons and Where to Find Them" you won't remember everything six seconds later, you've only got one chance to smash the door down cleanly before the guards hear your escape attempt...

If there's no pressure- yeah, you go pull out your third edition of "Ancient Dragons" and look up "Illsywattwixxraga, Devourer of the City of Ee". You eventually break down the door to the room you locked yourself out of, or smash the handle off. You use a grappling hook and some rope and make a rope bridge to cross- carefully. If there's no pressure or no consequences for failure, you could keep rolling until you get a 20. So in those situations, you cut to the chase and don't roll, just move on with the game.

[Hawkstar]

Funny, we had that argument before, where someone pointed out that all PCs are fit, strong and agile regardless of what their str, dex, and con are. It boggles the mind, then, what those stats are actually for...

...of course, the argument doesn't make sense. Your dex determines how agile you are (because that's what the stat means), and a character with low dex isn't agile. So yes, it is quite possible to play a non-fit character, and indeed this is fitting for certain archetypes. It's rather silly that you'd have to break down the system even further in order to save the dysfunctional skill system :smallbiggrin:They're not 'fit', but they're motivated and proactive. Couch potato implies laziness.

[ChubbyRain]

They're not 'fit', but they're motivated and proactive. Couch potato implies laziness.

We could just drop ability scores and have a more detailed skill list and then let the skills show what your character is like.

[Madeiner]

If there's no pressure- yeah, you go pull out your third edition of "Ancient Dragons" and look up "Illsywattwixxraga, Devourer of the City of Ee". You eventually break down the door to the room you locked yourself out of, or smash the handle off. You use a grappling hook and some rope and make a rope bridge to cross- carefully. If there's no pressure or no consequences for failure, you could keep rolling until you get a 20. So in those situations, you cut to the chase and don't roll, just move on with the game.

I don't know about that.
I mean, what if the party finds a stuck, heavy, stone door with no lock, that's been enchanted with an arcane lock spell (+10 DC).
That's ought to be a DC 30 door to bash down, right?

Even if you take 20, you are not going to make the DC, even if you have got all day.
And you also can't say it's not a challenge because you are not pressed for time. Or can you bypass ANYTHING provided you have the time?

[ChubbyRain]

I don't know about that.
I mean, what if the party finds a stuck, heavy, stone door with no lock, that's been enchanted with an arcane lock spell (+10 DC).
That's ought to be a DC 30 door to bash down, right?

Even if you take 20, you are not going to make the DC, even if you have got all day.
And you also can't say it's not a challenge because you are not pressed for time. Or can you bypass ANYTHING provided you have the time?

I think opening a stuck door or stone is an ability check strength, not an athletics check.

So the best you can do for that is be a champion, have +5 strength, and gain advantage.

2d20 (best) + 5 + 3 (half prof)

Edit...

Yeah strength check not athletics.

Which is another issue I have with the skill system, so much of it is left to ability checks.

[Hawkstar]

We could just drop ability scores and have a more detailed skill list and then let the skills show what your character is like.

They decided to go the other way with 5e, and have broadly-competent characters capable of doing anything, instead of the selections of 'what Can't Your Character Do" that skill systems encourage.

[ChubbyRain]

They decided to go the other way with 5e, and have broadly-competent characters capable of doing anything, instead of the selections of 'what Can't Your Character Do" that skill systems encourage.

See... No that's not what I mean.

You can still have that broad general character and the specific character.

Three groups of skills

Primary Skills = 2 * Prof Bonus (class choice skills, background skills)

Secondary Skills = Prof Bonus (other class skills)
Tertiary Skill = 1/2 Prof Bonus (all other skills)

All skills will fall under one if those for your character. You can try any skill check, some you will be great at, some you will be good at, and some (or most) you will be mediocre at best.

Change the prof bonus to work with the current math, or make better math. *shrug*

Just a spitball idea.

[Justin Sane]

I don't know about that.
I mean, what if the party finds a stuck, heavy, stone door with no lock, that's been enchanted with an arcane lock spell (+10 DC).
That's ought to be a DC 30 door to bash down, right?
Even if you take 20, you are not going to make the DC, even if you have got all day.

You slam your shoulder against the door over and over, but it just won't seem to budge.
And you also can't say it's not a challenge because you are not pressed for time. Or can you bypass ANYTHING provided you have the time?That would just be silly.

[Hawkstar]

I actually like 5e's 'ability check' system, but I think it may be poorly communicated or overly conflated with past skill systems.

The whole idea of it is to encourage players to ask "Can I do X?" (With X being any of the crazy shenanigans players are wont to think up). If it's something that the players have a chance of being able to do, they can roll to see if fate selects them, with their abilities and training giving them an edge in getting a desirable result from the perverse, capricious whim of the universe.

I'd have liked to see ability scores actually have effective abilities tied to them, though, similar to how Strength allows unimpeded armor movement - but expand on that to apply to other situations (And have modules write benefits of high ability scores or problems from low ability scores into stuff that happens in adventures). They should also be keyed to Odd values, giving them value as well.

Something else I like that the Ability Score system seemed to try to want to do (But I think backed away from it in development) is avoid 'Double-paying" for abilities. It's something I run into in D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder a lot - The ability scores mean jack nothing without heavy skill investment to back them up. I think it's one of the big reasons for the excessive Minmaxing and Dump-statting D&D is infamous for - You don't have the skill points to bu all the skills you want up to a relevant number, and without that skill investment, the bonus from the ability score is meaningless, so you might as well not invest in the ability score at all. With D&D 5e's Ability Check system treated the way it's supposed to, the Ability Scores become more universally valuable - under 3.5's style of a skill system, there's no meaningful difference in the social ability between an 18 CHA Fighter or 8 CHA Fighter unless they have equal and maximum skill-point investment. Likewise, In 4e and Star Wars SE, the skill systems were calibrated so that if you weren't proficient in the skills associated with an ability, you might as well not even try to use said ability. Charisma in all D&D, and INT as well in 4e are the stats most obviously without value beyond their associated skills (Which are quite valuable) - so if you don't have the skill points to burn on those attribute's skills, you're best off just dumping those attributes as far as possible. With 5e, the social ability of your Charisma modifier always matters, as with the Knowledge edge of your INT modifier.

I miss the loss of the "Break an Object" skill from the playtest, and I think I'll bring it back in any games I run as a Strength-based skill. And, I'll also probably remove the Trip and Grapple uses from Athletics, and make them a separate skill that Monks, Fighters, Barbarians, and Rangers are automatically proficient in. Strength needs more skills, and Athletics is too broad to me.

[Kurald Galain]

I actually like 5e's 'ability check' system, but I think it may be poorly communicated or overly conflated with past skill systems.

The whole idea of it is to encourage players to ask "Can I do X?" (With X being any of the crazy shenanigans players are wont to think up).
Yes, we get that. And the point is that it does the opposite of its intended goal: it actually discourages players from doing that, by giving players a substantial chance of failure at anything they try, and no way of training your character to avert that, unless the DM arbitrarily elects to not use the skill system. So, once again, BA works fine as long as you don't actually use it.

An example of a system that really encourages players to try crazy shenanigans is stunt dice.

[pwykersotz]

Yes, we get that. And the point is that it does the opposite of its intended goal: it actually discourages players from doing that, by giving players a substantial chance of failure at anything they try, and no way of training your character to avert that, unless the DM arbitrarily elects to not use the skill system. So, once again, BA works fine as long as you don't actually use it.

An example of a system that really encourages players to try crazy shenanigans is stunt dice.

You keep repeating this, and it's wrong by virtue of being hyperbolic in the extreme. :smallyuk: It discourages you.

[Kurald Galain]

You keep repeating this, and it's wrong by virtue of being hyperbolic in the extreme.

There's no hyperbole here. The whole point of the skill system (indeed, of BA as a whole) is that characters always have a substantial chance of failure at everything they try (because they'd be going outside the bounds of BA if they didn't). Again, except if the DM handwaves it.

It should be no surprise that not everybody likes this, or that some people like it fine in combat but not so much for skills. That's why we keep getting these threads, after all; it's one of the most common causes for houserules in the game.

[pwykersotz]

There's no hyperbole here. The whole point of the skill system (indeed, of BA as a whole) is that characters always have a substantial chance of failure at everything they try (because they'd be going outside the bounds of BA if they didn't). Again, except if the DM handwaves it.

It should be no surprise that not everybody likes this, or that some people like it fine in combat but not so much for skills. That's why we keep getting these threads, after all; it's one of the most common causes for houserules in the game.

And that's fine. It's not a surprise that some people don't like the skill system, and I think it's awesome to discuss alternate ways of doing things and come up with solutions that work for different people. I was hugely skeptical of this system when it was first introduced, and I'm even now a little surprised that it has happened to work so well for me and my groups.

The problem I have is that (from what I can tell, correct me if I'm wrong) you are insisting that the skill system does something in a universal fashion and it violates a narrow definition of "working" that you've set up, so obviously it's bad. There is a set of criteria a check must meet before a roll is called for, the primary aspect being that the DM decides that a roll is worthwhile, meaning there is a chance for success or failure in the first place.

The system doesn't pretend to chart the degrees of expertise in nuanced detail for closed environments like other systems do. People don't have a chance to fail at everything because everything is not rolled for. You don't have to roll for tying your shoes or walking down the street. Or even climbing a wall most of the time. However climbing a wall under a hail of arrows? Even the most experienced climber might have a stroke of bad luck. It's not measuring your skill alone, that might be covered by your background or the preparations you took. Your skill check total is a representation of your ability to deal with extreme hazards, and people do get pretty reliable with that.

[goto124]

The DM should be smart enough to know when to roll and when not to roll?

[ChubbyRain]

I think most people like the concept of this system, I do, but the issue lies on the implementation of the system.

If you are OK with the DM influencing what your character can do, instead of the rules, then this skill system works for you.

However if you like having rules and using them to make a character who can reliably perform their actions without having their hand held then this system won't work for you.

The concept seems to work for a majority of people but the implementation doesn't.

[mephnick]

it actually discourages players from doing that, by giving players a substantial chance of failure at anything they try,

As opposed to the 3.5 system that automatically refused the player the chance to do those things in the first place.

[pwykersotz]

I think most people like the concept of this system, I do, but the issue lies on the implementation of the system.

If you are OK with the DM influencing what your character can do, instead of the rules, then this skill system works for you.

However if you like having rules and using them to make a character who can reliably perform their actions without having their hand held then this system won't work for you.

The concept seems to work for a majority of people but the implementation doesn't.

And I get that, I do. But what seems to be missed in all this is that there's a tradeoff. The skill systems that allow you to build by the rules and reliably perform actions have abuses hard-coded into the system. Like I mentioned earlier, the Diplomancer, Jumplomancer, etc are terrible abuses of the nominal limits set by the game. Their mere existence and occasional use by well-meaning players and DM's forces an arms race of optimization to make sure everyone is having fun. Or else you have to ban or edit them, which makes this robust and nuanced system just as open to table-by-table change as 5e's system.

I've yet to see a skill system that didn't allow abuse, that didn't hamstring creativity, and that allows procedure-oriented building while being balanced. You can argue that there are better ones than what exist, but they all have their flaws. That's what I like about the 5e system, is that the flaws are simple to bypass by a reasonable table, and the gains in gameplay are vast.

Again, maybe not for everyone, but the system isn't broken to nearly the degree that is being claimed.

[Xetheral]

The skill systems that allow you to build by the rules and reliably perform actions have abuses hard-coded into the system.

...

[Y]ou have to ban or edit them, which makes this robust and nuanced system just as open to table-by-table change as 5e's system.

In my experience, players naturally avoid the hard-coded abuses. Tables are therefore all roughly similar in that the hard-coded abuses aren't actually a problem, even without house ruling.

In 5e, by contrast, each table's skill resolution will be different by definition, just because no two DM's are going to have the same idea of when a roll should be called for, and what the DC should be if it is.

[pwykersotz]

In my experience, players naturally avoid the hard-coded abuses. Tables are therefore all roughly similar in that the hard-coded abuses aren't actually a problem, even without house ruling.

In 5e, by contrast, each table's skill resolution will be different by definition, just because no two DM's are going to have the same idea of when a roll should be called for, and what the DC should be if it is.

While I consider your personal experience a valid indicator of some tables, I have had the exact opposite experience in both editions. It is what it is, I suppose.

[Fwiffo86]

In my experience, players naturally avoid the hard-coded abuses. Tables are therefore all roughly similar in that the hard-coded abuses aren't actually a problem, even without house ruling.

In 5e, by contrast, each table's skill resolution will be different by definition, just because no two DM's are going to have the same idea of when a roll should be called for, and what the DC should be if it is.

This is not an indicator of a flaw. This is lenience for any table to feel empowered and encouraged to do what they want to do. Not what the system restricts you to. It could be argued that hard-coded skill systems remove creativity and eliminate narrative power simply because Skill A does only A, B, or C. All other uses are non-functional. I would think the fact that every table will treat this as different (or can I should say) is a strong supporter of "game for everyone".

[goto124]

If you are OK with the DM influencing what your character can do, instead of the rules, then this skill system works for you.

However if you like having rules and using them to make a character who can reliably perform their actions without having their hand held then this system won't work for you.


In 5e, by contrast, each table's skill resolution will be different by definition, just because no two DM's are going to have the same idea of when a roll should be called for, and what the DC should be if it is.

I think that's what 5e was aiming for?

[TurboGhast]

I think that's what 5e was aiming for?

I agree. A tabletop RPG does not have to be consistent every time it is played as long as it is a good game when it is played, and 5e recognizes this and uses it.

[ChubbyRain]

I think that's what 5e was aiming for?

The issue here though is that there might as well be NO skills system in D&D 5e. Just one sentence that says something like "have players roll, always unreliable, make stuff up".

In public play, you are supposed to have a similar experience no matter what table you sit down at... This does not happen because there isn't a real skill system in play.

And it is pathetic. The skill system is a rip off and the designers should feel ashamed of it. If I put out work that was this... This messed up, especially if this was my design goal , my boss would fire me for incompetence.

Lucky for the devs that D&D isn't Hasbro's or Wotc's main toy right now.

[DivisibleByZero]

The issue here though is that there might as well be NO skills system in D&D 5e. Just one sentence that says something like "have players roll, always unreliable, make stuff up".

In public play, you are supposed to have a similar experience no matter what table you sit down at... This does not happen because there isn't a real skill system in play.

And it is pathetic. The skill system is a rip off and the designers should feel ashamed of it. If I put out work that was this... This messed up, especially if this was my design goal , my boss would fire me for incompetence.

Lucky for the devs that D&D isn't Hasbro's or Wotc's main toy right now.

Simply not true.
The published adventures and the Expeditions used for public play all have DCs listed for lots of various actions. And actions attempted which fall outside the bounds of the print will be using the printed DCs as a baseline.
The play will be similar, and you're exaggerating the point to make it sound terrible, when in fact it is not.

[ChubbyRain]

Simply not true.
The published adventures and the Expeditions used for public play all have DCs listed for lots of various actions. And actions attempted which fall outside the bounds of the print will be using the printed DCs as a baseline.
The play will be similar, and you're exaggerating the point to make it sound terrible, when in fact it is not.

Simply is true.

In a game recently a player (rogue) said he was going to make an acrobatics check after jumping out a window to land safely on the ground. The DM said "No, you don't get to make that decision, besides it would be an athletics check". It is clearly stated in the book that acrobatics can reduce falling issues but the DM said it is athletics.

Public play only gives you DCs, but players will do things outside the adventure scope. The Rogue went from having a good chance of landing on their feet and running away to almost no chance. D20 +7 versus d20-1... The rogue failed the skill check surprisingly enough -_-.

In the next game we played together, under a different DM, I went to jump out a window and was told to make an acrobatics check to land safely. I glanced over at my party mate and shrugged. I landed safely and was able to get the woman I was carrying to safety from a burning house.

In public play, doing the exact same action resulted n different skill checks because the game is based around DM fiat and no hard line rules for skill checks.

Edit: That rogue player gave up D&D. Not being allowed to use rules in a rules heavy game really pushes some players away.

[pwykersotz]

The issue here though is that there might as well be NO skills system in D&D 5e. Just one sentence that says something like "have players roll, always unreliable, make stuff up".

In public play, you are supposed to have a similar experience no matter what table you sit down at... This does not happen because there isn't a real skill system in play.

And it is pathetic. The skill system is a rip off and the designers should feel ashamed of it. If I put out work that was this... This messed up, especially if this was my design goal , my boss would fire me for incompetence.

Lucky for the devs that D&D isn't Hasbro's or Wotc's main toy right now.

This is all useless vitriol.


Simply is true.

In a game recently a player (rogue) said he was going to make an acrobatics check after jumping out a window to land safely on the ground. The DM said "No, you don't get to make that decision, besides it would be an athletics check". It is clearly stated in the book that acrobatics can reduce falling issues but the DM said it is athletics.

Public play only gives you DCs, but players will do things outside the adventure scope. The Rogue went from having a good chance of landing on their feet and running away to almost no chance. D20 +7 versus d20-1... The rogue failed the skill check surprisingly enough -_-.

In the next game we played together, under a different DM, I went to jump out a window and was told to make an acrobatics check to land safely. I glanced over at my party mate and shrugged. I landed safely and was able to get the woman I was carrying to safety from a burning house.

In public play, doing the exact same action resulted n different skill checks because the game is based around DM fiat and no hard line rules for skill checks.

Edit: That rogue player gave up D&D. Not being allowed to use rules in a rules heavy game really pushes some players away.

This is a fair criticism, but it doesn't make the point that the skill system is bad. Rather it makes the point that the DM didn't consider the guidelines that DO exist and didn't communicate them. This happens in all systems, and in fact my subjective experience is opposite. My 3.5 DM violated the set DC's FAR more often than he violates my expectations with 5e's system.

The fact that the rogue gave up play is sad, but entirely beside the point and I'm comforted by the fact that you can always run a 4e game for him.

[DivisibleByZero]

The fact that the rogue gave up play is sad,

Completely agree.
I do skills in a very different way.
Unless it's completely obvious that there is only one correct roll, with no alternatives (such as Wisdom: Perception), I tell the player to roll an <insert ability here> check.
If the player has a proficiency that they think will help, they ask if they can apply it, whether that is normally the skill's attribute or not. If it's something that I'm unsure about, I ask them how that proficiency is going to help.

Example: In that scenario, he wants to jump out the window.
I tell him to roll a Strength check.
He asks if he can use Acrobatics. Seeing the obvious reasoning, I approve. So now he's rolling Str: Acro.

If he wants to use a proficiency that I don't immediately think will be helpful, I ask how that skill will help him. The answer to that question determines whether or not he can add his proficiency bonus.

I'm sure you'll say that the fact that the system allows this mutability is a weakness. I see it as a HUGE strength of the system.

The bottom line is that you described not a failing of the system, but a failing of the DM. Don't blame the system because your DM was too narrow minded.

[ChubbyRain]

The heart of the issue is that skills are a class feature in which the class/player doesn't get to control.

It would be like if the DM picked the DC for a spell being cast by the player.. Sometimes it is DC 5, DC 13, or DC 30.

That is how skills are.

[DivisibleByZero]

The heart of the issue is that skills are a class feature in which the class/player doesn't get to control.

That is once again not a failing of the system.
The fact of the matter is that the player is not in control of anything that he does.
The player is only in control of the things that he attempts to do.
The DM is, and has always been, in control of the outcome.

The player empowerment of 3e/4e has gone beyond empowerment and is firmly entrenched in the land of entitlement. The fact that your friend quit playing the game because of a damn skill check proves this.

[LordVonDerp]

Simply is true.

In a game recently a player (rogue) said he was going to make an acrobatics check after jumping out a window to land safely on the ground. The DM said "No, you don't get to make that decision, besides it would be an athletics check". It is clearly stated in the book that acrobatics can reduce falling issues but the DM said it is athletics.

Public play only gives you DCs, but players will do things outside the adventure scope. The Rogue went from having a good chance of landing on their feet and running away to almost no chance. D20 +7 versus d20-1... The rogue failed the skill check surprisingly enough -_-.

In the next game we played together, under a different DM, I went to jump out a window and was told to make an acrobatics check to land safely. I glanced over at my party mate and shrugged. I landed safely and was able to get the woman I was carrying to safety from a burning house.

In public play, doing the exact same action resulted n different skill checks because the game is based around DM fiat and no hard line rules for skill checks.

Edit: That rogue player gave up D&D. Not being allowed to use rules in a rules heavy game really pushes some players away.

That sounds like a case of an idiot DM, though it does leave me wondering why the rest of the table didn't stick up for the rogue.

Anyway, I think the system is designed so it can function differently in different worlds. It wouldn't make sense for characters in the world of Avatar to use the same table for jump checks as those in Game of Thrones, for example.

[LordVonDerp]

That is once again not a failing of the system.
The fact of the matter is that the player is not in control of anything that he does.
The player is only in control of the things that he attempts to do.
The DM is, and has always been, in control of the outcome.

The player empowerment of 3e/4e has gone beyond empowerment and is firmly entrenched in the land of entitlement. The fact that your friend quit playing the game because of a damn skill check proves this.

How we interact with the world says a lot about both us, and about the world we live in. If we find ourselves unable to judge our characters' level of skill in a concrete manner, then we find ourselves unable to see the world through their eyes.
Worse still would be if we had no way to know how the character feels about their odds of success, as the ability to judge such things is such a fundamental part of skill itself.

[DivisibleByZero]

How we interact with the world says a lot about both us, and about the world we live in. If we find ourselves unable to judge our characters' level of skill in a concrete manner, then we find ourselves unable to see the world through their eyes.
Worse still would be if we had no way to know how the character feels about their odds of success, as the ability to judge such things is such a fundamental part of skill itself.

I could argue that 5e's skill system is leaps and bounds better.
We often over or under estimate our level of skill in matters. 5e's system makes skill interactions more believable, not less. It should be easier to see yourself in your character's eyes, with your character's doubts and fears of failure (or overconfidence) mimicking our own.

[Hawkstar]

The issue here though is that there might as well be NO skills system in D&D 5e. Just one sentence that says something like "have players roll, always unreliable, make stuff up".There is a big middle ground between "Rigidly-defined and inflexible skill system" and "have players roll, always unreliable, make stuff up" that you are ignoring. 5e goes for a balance of The Whims of Fate in deciding whether or not crazy ideas work and having PC proficiencies influence those rolls.


In public play, you are supposed to have a similar experience no matter what table you sit down at... This does not happen because there isn't a real skill system in play.In public play with established modules, DCs are preset. You're making a mountain out of a teacup. Also - the very nature of a tabletop game with random elements means similar experiences aren't really possible.


And it is pathetic. The skill system is a rip off and the designers should feel ashamed of it. If I put out work that was this... This messed up, especially if this was my design goal , my boss would fire me for incompetence.

Lucky for the devs that D&D isn't Hasbro's or Wotc's main toy right now.It's not a "Skill System" trying to quantify what your character can or cannot do. Instead, it is a resolution mechanic for quickly and intuitively handling the off-the-wall stunts a party of D&D players might choose to do, such as impersonating a Kuo-Toa Deity to terrify them into abandoning an outpost, or turning an ox-drawn cart under fire from a goblin ambush into an improvised mobile death-fortress on wheels (And maintaining some control over it as you careen madly through the goblins, trying to smash some with the side of said death-cart), or hear an approaching band of pirates over the sound of a showstopping musical number, or gain clemency from the Bullywug King through desperate negotiations, or actually learn anything from a class you slept through years ago, or manage to tell someone they look like a fool without actually telling them they look like a fool.

[LordVonDerp]

I could argue that 5e's skill system is leaps and bounds better.
We often over or under estimate our level of skill in matters. 5e's system makes skill interactions more believable, not less. It should be easier to see yourself in your character's eyes, with your character's doubts and fears of failure (or overconfidence) mimicking our own.

And because the tendency to over or underestimate our own skills usually depends on how skilled we actually are, the point still stands.

[DivisibleByZero]

And because the tendency to over or underestimate our own skills usually depends on how skilled we actually are, the point still stands.

And because we constantly misunderstand our own competency levels to begin with, my point still stands.

Look, I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying there are other ways to look at it besides focusing on the things that you see negatively. Even the things that you see negatively can be seen in a positive light if you just alter or disregard your preconceptions.

[Naanomi]

In confused by the idea 3.X had such a rigidly defined skill system... Nothing close to every use of a skill was defined even combining all source books; and the 'DM can had circumstance modifiers' rule essentially made the DCs suggestions anyways

[DivisibleByZero]

In confused by the idea 3.X had such a rigidly defined skill system... Nothing close to every use of a skill was defined even combining all source books; and the 'DM can had circumstance modifiers' rule essentially made the DCs suggestions anyways

Well, basically, this explains it:


This New Thing - It is Bad (http://tinyurl.com/outnyvk)

Ok I have been playing DDO since God was a baby, and before that I was playing PnP even before Gary Gygax was born. It's always been a source of fun and joy for me, and when I joined this game I thought at the time it was my home. But then they brought this new thing into the game. This new thing is going to completely break the game! In the past I used to do it in the old way, and that was fine. I did it like that, I was fine, and nothing ever went wrong. But then there was this new thing! WHY?

There are many reasons why this new thing will break the game.

1: The equipment we farmed will have different value now.
2: The work we did will be easier or harder for subsequent people to do.
3: It is different.
4: It is not the same as it was before.
5: The way it was before is how I want it to remain.
6: It is new.
7: I don't like it.

With all of these factors in mind - and these are just the ones that come to me now, I would like to put forward a petition. Please, please can we stop this new thing now? And in the meantime can I also tell you how qualified I am not to like this new thing. I did that old thing a lot. I was better than anyone in the world at that old thing. I am the master of that old thing. The only master. This is not the reason I dislike this new thing, though. I am the master of this new thing too. Oh no don't get me wrong, I am better at this new thing than any of you, ever, and have been since before I was born. But that old thing was better, and this new thing is bad and wrong.

Please Devs - take notice of my cries. This new thing is going to make this game into a different game from how it was before. This cannot be allowed to happen. Stop now. You will listen to me, Devs, because we are close personal friends. I have known you all for years. We used to do that old thing together every tuesday lunchtime. One time you said to me, "Slog I will always warn you before I change anything so you can veto it if you don't like it." Well, you didn't. You went behind my back.

Anyway, I am not complaining. I just want to make it perfectly clear that I am oober, this new thing is bad, and that old thing is the only way that anything should be done.

[Kurald Galain]

The player empowerment of 3e/4e has gone beyond empowerment and is firmly entrenched in the land of entitlement. The fact that your friend quit playing the game because of a damn skill check proves this.
Come now. Being able to build a character that can reliably climb walls is in no way "entitlement".


There is a big middle ground between "Rigidly-defined and inflexible skill system" and "have players roll, always unreliable, make stuff up" that you are ignoring.
Indeed. Unfortunately, 5E failed to find that middle ground, and is firmly entrenched in "have players roll, always unreliable, make stuff up".

[Fwiffo86]

Come now. Being able to build a character that can reliably climb walls is in no way "entitlement".


I suppose you could say, the rules eliminating the possibility of DM storytelling isn't entitlement. All the power was in the hands of the characters/players, not the DM. The DM did nothing other than choose the encounters and what order they went in. After that, the game could have run itself because the DM had no authority to do much of anything. That became the player expectation. That may be why many people rail against the DM empowered 5e.

[Xetheral]

I suppose you could say, the rules eliminating the possibility of DM storytelling isn't entitlement. All the power was in the hands of the characters/players, not the DM. The DM did nothing other than choose the encounters and what order they went in. After that, the game could have run itself because the DM had no authority to do much of anything. That became the player expectation. That may be why many people rail against the DM empowered 5e.

You apparently played a very, very different style of 3.5 game than I ever did.

[Estrillian]

Completely agree.
I do skills in a very different way.
Unless it's completely obvious that there is only one correct roll, with no alternatives (such as Wisdom: Perception), I tell the player to roll an <insert ability here> check.
If the player has a proficiency that they think will help, they ask if they can apply it, whether that is normally the skill's attribute or not. If it's something that I'm unsure about, I ask them how that proficiency is going to help.

The 5th Edition DMG is very explicit about the fact this is the way the game is supposed to work. When the DM believes that a task has a meaningful consequence for failure (this is the explicit condition given for needing a roll) and has a chance of failure for the character, they call for an attribute check. The player can add their proficiency bonus to the check if they believe a Skill that they are proficient in is relevant, or a Tool they have proficiency with could be used. (I extend that to give proficiency based on background, but that's now RAW). Essentially all you are deciding is if proficiency applies or not, your table clearly gets to set standards for how you decide that. Skills are only one suggested way of getting proficiency added. This covers the "I should be able to do that because I'm an X, but don't have the skill" sort of issue.

As an aside the DMG also has pretty good guidelines for deciding when to have a roll or not. It makes it clear that if you think the character can never achieve the task (for example a knowledge skill that they don't have) then they don't get to roll. No roll, not even a 20, will succeed. On the other hand if you believe that the task is trivial for a person (like the maths examples given above) then again no roll, they will always succeed. Similarly it suggests that if a task can be achieved just with repeated tries, then it auto-succeeds in roughly ten times as long as needed to try it once, i.e. the 5E equivalent of the Take 10/20 rule. You should only roll if :


Success is not guaranteed for this character
Success is possible for this character
Time is a factor (or plenty of time still doesn't ensure success)
Failure is meaningful
Failure is interesting


There is an optional rule in the DMG for doing away with rolls based on comparing the DC to the Passive Skill, which basically gives everyone who is trained a version of reliable talents, and which I think would be intended to replace the guideline approach above, but it does suggest that there are issues with it, such as players always matching the auto-success people with every task, and task resolution becoming boring. Also it has a weird thing where the trivial level DC changes based on character level (from 10 to 15 as you go up in level) which is enough of an ugly hack that I wouldn't use it myself.

[Fwiffo86]

You apparently played a very, very different style of 3.5 game than I ever did.

Probably not, I just get tired of listening to statements that boil down to: "I as a player know that it says the DC for this task is (X), therefore the DM has no authority to change that number regardless of the situation, because rules."

Essentially my point is that this thinking is rooted in the 3.5 and 4 rule set. More codified rules seems to remove the DM's ability to fiddle with things to make the story more dramatic/interesting. I feel many players (to many) want 100% success rates in everything they try, maximum damage outputs, unbeatable saves when spelling their opponents and impregnable defenses so their characters can stomp willy nilly anywhere against anything simply because they think "Heroic Fantasy" equates to God Mode.

Whether this is true or not? I cannot say for certain. By I certainly get that impression from several posters here. They obviously play under a vastly different paradigm than I do. I have always preferred story over mechanics, and Rule 0 to enable said story over mechanics. I apparently must be in the minority.

[ChubbyRain]

Come now. Being able to build a character that can reliably climb walls is in no way "entitlement".


Indeed. Unfortunately, 5E failed to find that middle ground, and is firmly entrenched in "have players roll, always unreliable, make stuff up".

Yeah, heaven forbid that my character knows what they can or can't do before attempting something.

But I think 5e went to far on the side of DM entitlement. The core rules of the game now work as if a videogame changed its programming every so often and that double jump now only takes you as far as a single jump. You really have no clue what the exact same character will do from one game to the next. Everyone talks about how martials are balanced cause they can use physical skills better, well, not when they don't know what they can do with their physical skills. Swinging across on a chandelier may be DC 10 or 30, the player (and more importantly the character) doesn't know what they are getting into because they don't know what they can already do. Its like they get memory loss.

As for entitlement...

It should be considered a privilege to DM, and for me, it really is. Every time I DM I feel absolutely privileged to be there and able to run a game. I also feel privileged when I get to play in a game too. Way to many people take both sides of the game for granted and take the term Dungeon MASTER way to literal. The term dungeon master really enflates way to many egos.

[KorvinStarmast]

I walked away from PF 3e and 4e because there too many rules, that's why i love 5e.
QFT.
Back to an earlier point.

Your character never ever knows meta info about the enemies your fighting. being able to use an in game mechanic to determine the exact hp total of your enemy is the DM being too nice. It is a symptom of people playing video games with health bars.

Compare Diablo I and Diablo II. In the original, you didn't have health bars. In the sequel, you did. It is interesting to me to see, in Diablo III, that you can remove the monster health bar display. That provides a more "Diablo I" feel if you prefer that.

In the original game of D & D, when the Hit Points (based on a d6) were variable, you didn't know if you were up against a beefier Ogre or not ... or if they were both near max. You just fought them until they killed you or you killed them, or the infamous moral checks were made. (I don't see morale checks that much anymore, which is a pity. That was a feature from table top miniatures games that was pretty useful and good for making D & D less of a meat grinder).

This could work against you. I had a DM who would, on the beginning of a session, roll OUR hit points as well.

We didn't know how strong we were that day, either.
He did the same after Greyhawk came out.

Two thieves running around the City State of the Invincible Overlord ... not knowing how many pips on the dice that the DM rolled we got that day beyond
You feel good
You feel great
You feel not so good this morning, maybe it was the wine from last night ...

A different style of play than the spreadsheet madness we see in the modern age.

As to the skill system that is now available, *old person voice* we didn't have that. So, we'd try to do something and the DM would allow, disallow, or ask us to roll for it. Worked.

I understand why, due to the public play points made, a system that would be more standardized was asked for, but you still had a game where there are spells that are "save or die" and not everyone will roll their save in an adventure where saving throws are part of the game.

Likewise with skill attempts, the entire window jumping scenario considered.

[ChubbyRain]

QFT.
Back to an earlier point.
It is a symptom of people playing video games with health bars.

Compare Diablo I and Diablo II. In the original, you didn't have health bars. In the sequel, you did. It is interesting to me to see, in Diablo III, that you can remove the monster health bar display. That provides a more "Diablo I" feel if you prefer that.

In the original game of D & D, when the Hit Points (based on a d6) were variable, you didn't know if you were up against a beefier Ogre or not ... or if they were both near max. You just fought them until they killed you or you killed them, or the infamous moral checks were made. (I don't see morale checks that much anymore, which is a pity. That was a feature from table top miniatures games that was pretty useful and good for making D & D less of a meat grinder).

This could work against you. I had a DM who would, on the beginning of a session, roll OUR hit points as well.

We didn't know how strong we were that day, either.
He did the same after Greyhawk came out.

Two thieves running around the City State of the Invincible Overlord ... not knowing how many pips on the dice that the DM rolled we got that day beyond
You feel good
You feel great
You feel not so good this morning, maybe it was the wine from last night ...

A different style of play than the spreadsheet madness we see in the modern age.

As to the skill system that is now available, *old person voice* we didn't have that. So, we'd try to do something and the DM would allow, disallow, or ask us to roll for it. Worked.

I understand why, due to the public play points made, a system that would be more standardized was asked for, but you still had a game where there are spells that are "save or die" and not everyone will roll their save in an adventure where saving throws are part of the game.

Likewise with skill attempts, the entire window jumping scenario considered.

Actually it is an effect of the HP system not being well defined.

Since HP is a complete mix of physical wounds, luck, mental wounds, exhaustion, and whatever else... Players and DMs a like feel that there should be some sort of tell that says if the monster is at full, half, or whatever other number of HP.

Also spells don't say "you heal the target for some HP" and leave it up to the DM. The spells that heal will say very specifically 2d8+Wis hit points.

If the character knows how much more on average a spell will heal then people must know about hit points or how messed up the target is in some way.

HP may be meta but at the same time it isn't meta.

It isn't because of video games, HP and healing has been around d&d since the 70's... Really you should say that video game HP is the product of D&D (Final Fantasy 1 and others) as a lot of games gave you one shot and death (PAC Man, mario, space invaders) but let you try multiple times.

[Steampunkette]

I made up a little granularity increasing skill option that can be found here. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?418475-Alternate-Skill-System-for-greater-granularity&p=19334376#post19334376)

Dunno how many people would want it, but it's there. With bounded accuracy/DCs I feel like it's not going to change much of anything in the end.

[KorvinStarmast]

Actually it is an effect of the HP system not being well defined.
What? The HP system is a tool that has become much improved, in terms of how to understand it and to use it, since the game began.
It isn't because of video games, HP and healing has been around d&d since the 70's... No kidding? I started in 1975. You?

My point was confined to the example raised about people asking for the ability to read the actual HP value on a monster.
That was what I was getting at on this whole attempt to use a "skill" to get a metagame number. I am very aware of how D & D was a major influence on the video game industry as we know it today. (And I think it's a great legacy ...)

I am wondering if you read my entire post.

[ChubbyRain]

What? The HP system is a tool that has become much improved, in terms of how to understand it and to use it, since the game began. No kidding? I started in 1975. You?

My point was confined to the example raised about people asking for the ability to read the actual HP value on a monster.
That was what I was getting at on this whole attempt to use a "skill" to get a metagame number. I am very aware of how D & D was a major influence on the video game industry as we know it today. (And I think it's a great legacy ...)

I am wondering if you read my entire post.

Please tell me what year you or I started playing D&D has to do with the price of eggs in China ?

Or this, or any, discussion?

HP is still a mess because it is, and has been, ill defined since it was originally implemented.

Perfect example of how HP is still messy. If HP is the combination of all the stuff (luck, wounds, ability to go on...) then why is Con the only ability score that matters for it? Con is a purely physical ability score and yet nothing else is applied. You could chalk class HD up to the rest but then are we saying commoners and creatures only get physical HP?

I can go on.

The point is that you are claiming some nonsense about HP which is simply refutable.

[Fwiffo86]

Swinging across on a chandelier may be DC 10 or 30, the player (and more importantly the character) doesn't know what they are getting into because they don't know what they can already do. Its like they get memory loss.

In your opinion, what is the DC for swinging across a chandelier?

What about if you are under attack?

What about if you are being commanded to by a spell?

What if the chandelier is damaged/wet?

To my understanding, the only set DC in this situation is the first one. In a perfect scenario, where the character has time to focus all of their attention, knows the chandelier is in stable condition and is dry, then you have a static DC.

If your issue is that DMs have different ideas of what the modifying numbers are, that cannot be an issue with the system. That is a different opinion of modifiers as envisioned by yourself vs. another person.

Again, to enable "game for everyone" Everyone (including people who have vastly different opinions of this) must be able to use the same system. This is intentional design and not a flaw.

[KorvinStarmast]

Please tell me what year you or I started playing D&D has to do with the price of eggs in China ? Once again you do not seem to have read my entire post.
HP is still a mess because it is, and has been, ill defined since it was originally implemented.
This is an unsupported assertion, and I'll use your own examples to illustrate why your statement is hard to buy. The number of games that use HP as a tool, including some of the video games already mentioned by us both.

Go back to the original chain mail rules, and hit dice (as we now know them) were that mechanic in that combat system. How many times you had to roll a hit to remove that Hero from the board.

In the role playing genre:
How do you know if you have slain the evil ogre or not?
How do you know if you died trying?

HP is a tool successfully used for about 40 years to answer both of those questions, and not just in D & D.

That was my point and you did nothing to refute any of it.

We got a bit off topic here, as the original point is about ability checks. Mea culpa.

[Hawkstar]

Perfect example of how HP is still messy. If HP is the combination of all the stuff (luck, wounds, ability to go on...) then why is Con the only ability score that matters for it? Con is a purely physical ability score and yet nothing else is applied. You could chalk class HD up to the rest but then are we saying commoners and creatures only get physical HP?What other ability score would apply? I could see a case being made for CHA.

Toughness is part of hit points, which is why Constitution applies. But, it's not the bulk of Hit Points - most hit points come from class and level. (Of course, CON's hit points multiplying on level is the one thing I wish they'd kept ditched from 4e).

A fighter of 14 con is just as tough and burly as a 14 con wizard. The fighter class's extra HP come from non-toughness based elements of HP. Likewise, a 14 CON level 1 character is just as tough and stout as a 14 CON level 20 character. Those extra HP on the level 20 guy come from experience and narrative favor.

[Icewraith]

Please tell me what year you or I started playing D&D has to do with the price of eggs in China ?

Or this, or any, discussion?

HP is still a mess because it is, and has been, ill defined since it was originally implemented.

Perfect example of how HP is still messy. If HP is the combination of all the stuff (luck, wounds, ability to go on...) then why is Con the only ability score that matters for it? Con is a purely physical ability score and yet nothing else is applied. You could chalk class HD up to the rest but then are we saying commoners and creatures only get physical HP?

I can go on.

The point is that you are claiming some nonsense about HP which is simply refutable.

Con is a measure of toughness and endurance. A lot of physical toughness is actually from mental toughness, it's written right in the PHB that for checks involving endurance, such as swimming to a far-off island, the DM can be expected to call for an Athletics check using Con. It's the toughness and endurance stat, so it gets added to HP- not physical toughness and endurance, your character's general toughness and endurance.

HP isn't a mess, it's designed to be a simple system that tells the player and DM when a character/monster has taken too much punishment in a game where PCs are swinging swords and throwing fireballs. It allows your character to be crit by a greatsword or bitten by an enormous dragon while preventing that from meaning your character is automatically run through with the greatsword or bitten in half by the dragon.

The point is that you are claiming some nonsense about HP and Con which is simply refutable.

(Note: Mario is a character that can take more than one hit if he's got a mushroom/fire flower. Unless he falls into a pit.)

Is it just me or when we get an anecdote about how the skill rules don't work in actual gameplay, we usually end up with an anecdote involving a DM not following the rules?

The section on abilities and skills is a few pages, but it includes:

1-Definition of what each ability is intended to represent.
2-Examples of common adventuring checks related to that ability.
3-Skills normally related to that ability.
4-Examples of areas where the DM may use different ability/skill combinations to better model certain scenarios (using STR for intimidate, using CON for Athletics are two examples).

[Steampunkette]

HP is a loose abstraction based on what dozens, if not hundreds, of writers have put together for decades. And much like the Founding Fathers: The original intent is moot and all that is left is a good guideline.

It can either represent hardcore "This is how much blood you have to bleed" or it can be "This is a combination of morale, blood, luck, and a dozen different things" depending on the kind of game you want to run. But trying to get the "Original Intent" or the "True Spirit" of the thing is freaking impossible because of the 40ish years of rewriting, revamping, expanding, retconning, and redefining of the term Hit Points to cover the ideas and understanding of dozens of devs.

There are at least 3 major alternatives to standard hit points. Including, but not limited to, Wound/Toughness systems, Vitality Points, and the aforementioned "Reroll HP Everyday" option which, really, is just awful if only for the extra dice-rolling.

There's also at least a half dozen different Armor Class systems, including one or two where armor becomes more hit points to reflect softening blows without deflecting them.

Sure. Hit Points make no sense when you try and break it down in some Spock-Logic manner. But they're not meant to represent something so concrete. They're an abstraction. So are all of the other systems that have ever been presented. Why? Because it's easier to roll attack and damage than to figure out how much damage a longsword would -really- do to a human body and even if you did it would probably ruin the game.

For those that want to know, the answer is "Tremendous Trauma and Death with very little chance of survival." which... yeah. Ruins the whole game aspect unless you want to roll a new character after every other fight. I'll toss an example of what a Kilij (Turkish Blade) can do into a spoiler tag. It ain't pretty.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikVMXhcjbYc

[Hawkstar]

For those that want to know, the answer is "Tremendous Trauma and Death with very little chance of survival." which... yeah. Ruins the whole game aspect unless you want to roll a new character after every other fight. I'll toss an example of what a Kilij (Turkish Blade) can do into a spoiler tag. It ain't pretty.
Actually, it ranges from "Slightly disadvantaged footing from a blocked blow" to "Tremendous Trauma and Death with very little chance of survival"
HP, in practice, tends to answer the question "How long can a fighter hold out in combat against enemies".

[Steampunkette]

The question I posed was how much it would do to the body. Not whether it would be dodged, blocked, deflected, or otherwise avoided.

:p

But yeah. That is why the abstraction is used.

[Pex]

In 5e, by contrast, each table's skill resolution will be different by definition, just because no two DM's are going to have the same idea of when a roll should be called for, and what the DC should be if it is.

Exactly! That's my problem with the system. I have to relearn the game just because I play with a different DM. I shouldn't have to.

[Steampunkette]

Then you're going to need a Computer Game which has no room for a person's judgement or opinion to come into the game's mechanics.

Fortunately, there are tons of them out there.

[Pex]

Probably not, I just get tired of listening to statements that boil down to: "I as a player know that it says the DC for this task is (X), therefore the DM has no authority to change that number regardless of the situation, because rules."

Essentially my point is that this thinking is rooted in the 3.5 and 4 rule set. More codified rules seems to remove the DM's ability to fiddle with things to make the story more dramatic/interesting. I feel many players (to many) want 100% success rates in everything they try, maximum damage outputs, unbeatable saves when spelling their opponents and impregnable defenses so their characters can stomp willy nilly anywhere against anything simply because they think "Heroic Fantasy" equates to God Mode.

Whether this is true or not? I cannot say for certain. By I certainly get that impression from several posters here. They obviously play under a vastly different paradigm than I do. I have always preferred story over mechanics, and Rule 0 to enable said story over mechanics. I apparently must be in the minority.

Now that's hyperbole. A player wanting to be an expert at one thing does not equate to wanting to be an expert at everything. I don't expect my character to be an expert at 1st level, though reliably good is not out of the question. However, at some level >> 1 I do want to be that good I can't fail at a task. I fully intend and expect to invest game mechanics resources the game provides and allows for as payment to make that happen, even if it's just be level X in class Y. It is not "entitlement" to use the rules. If after becoming that good I happen to not succeed at a task anyway, I want that failure to be because Something's Up. It's an adventure plot point. An opponent or obstacle has done or is doing something using the rules that hinders me. I need to find out what that is and overcome it. "Using the rules" could be a monster manual ability. An example from Pathfinder of which I'm more familiar with is my paladin failing a saving throw and becoming Shaken. Normally I'm immune, but unbeknownst to me my opponent is an anti-paladin which specifically has an ability that nullifies my immune to fear. That's the game. I do not want the failure to be "just because" of DM fiat to be "challenging" or "interesting". That is tyrannical DMing. I paid for the game mechanics resources to be that expert. I want to enjoy the fruits of my labor. In Pathfinder, my paladin should never suffer from a normal evil dragon's fear aura. To be "challenging" or "interesting" is to be placed occasionally in a non-optimal situation. In Pathfinder, my paladin would be fighting an opponent who is Neutral, not necessarily a construct or plant creature, thus I can't use Smite Evil, Protection From Evil spell, make my Bonded Weapon Holy, or other anti-Evil stuff.

[Takewo]

Exactly! That's my problem with the system. I have to relearn the game just because I play with a different DM. I shouldn't have to.

But, but... in 3.5 it also says that the DM decides every DC based on the tables, and there was also the issue with spot and search checks, or which kind of knowledge could you use to figure out something about a monster, or whether to use gather information or diplomacy, and probably a few other issues.

Since people have free will and capability to interpret the rules, it is normal that different people will understand a particular situation in a different way. That's nothing new and it doesn't depend on the skill system you use, it's just inherent to human being.

[Vogonjeltz]

The ability to change anything and everything does not make D&D 5E entirely DM fiat. There are hundreds of pages of rulebooks, after all.

It's that the DM sets the stage, determines who all the NPCs are, where all the locations are, what the opportunities are, what the outcomes are, etc, that make the game DM fiat. The players only agency is in saying what they want to try to do. The outcomes of what the players ask to try are entirely DM decision making.


Why on earth would anyone pay for a game that is entirely DM fiat?

Why do we? Because shared storytelling is fun.


Are you sure about this? I thought rechecks were normally permitted?

It really depends on what the check was for. If it was a check to stop a bomb from going off, obviously it's a one-off. But if it's a check to climb a tree, then yeah, try, try again.


The DM should be smart enough to know when to roll and when not to roll?

The DM does decide when to roll and when not to roll, regardless of how smart they are.


This is a fair criticism, but it doesn't make the point that the skill system is bad. Rather it makes the point that the DM didn't consider the guidelines that DO exist and didn't communicate them. This happens in all systems, and in fact my subjective experience is opposite. My 3.5 DM violated the set DC's FAR more often than he violates my expectations with 5e's system.

The fact that the rogue gave up play is sad, but entirely beside the point and I'm comforted by the fact that you can always run a 4e game for him.

Yeah, bad DM does not mean bad rules, it just means bad DM.

[KorvinStarmast]

I have to relearn the game just because I play with a different DM. I shouldn't have to. Yes you should, to a some extent, since in a broad sense rulings over rules is how the game in 5e is built to be played. Not to mention that you don't have to relearn the whole game, you only have to adapt to the flavor at a given table.

This requires you to have a dialogue with, to communicate with, your DM. If that's too big of a burden to bear, what attracts you to playing RPG's with other people?

[Fwiffo86]

I have to relearn the game just because I play with a different DM. I shouldn't have to.

Hyperbole. Readjusting to slightly different DCs at different tables hardly qualifies as "relearning" the game. You still roll the same attack rolls, use the same equipment and cast the same spells. Exaggeration does not elicit sympathy in this case.


A player wanting to be an expert at one thing does not equate to wanting to be an expert at everything. I don't expect my character to be an expert at 1st level, though reliably good is not out of the question.

Agreed. However, noone makes that distinction when posting. They complain that skill checks are swingy, or that there is no reliable way to ensure that you "succeed". Apparently many just ignore the fact that if its auto-succeed, there is no reason to roll in the first place.



However, at some level >> 1 I do want to be that good I can't fail at a task. I fully intend and expect to invest game mechanics resources the game provides and allows for as payment to make that happen, even if it's just be level X in class Y. It is not "entitlement" to use the rules.


Again, agreed. However, your expectation that level automatically solicits success is covered by the rules (proficiency bonus). If there is no question or chance of failure, there is no roll. Entitlement is believing that "for the reason" I am this level, I should automatically be able to (insert task) with minimal chance of failure in every single use of this skill check. This is the hallmark of entitlement and player over DM empowerment.



If after becoming that good I happen to not succeed at a task anyway, I want that failure to be because Something's Up. It's an adventure plot point. An opponent or obstacle has done or is doing something using the rules that hinders me. I need to find out what that is and overcome it.

Again, I agree with what you are saying. But who provides those obstacles? The DM. Who provides modifiers for your "automatic immunity to fail"? The DM needs license to tell the player, No. Your argument lends to removing that capability from the DM so that the player is always right.


To be "challenging" or "interesting" is to be placed occasionally in a non-optimal situation. In Pathfinder, my paladin would be fighting an opponent who is Neutral, not necessarily a construct or plant creature, thus I can't use Smite Evil, Protection From Evil spell, make my Bonded Weapon Holy, or other anti-Evil stuff.

Lastly, I also agree with this. My only change is that only "occasionally" should the player be allowed to dominate the scenario instead of being "occasionally" challenged. This is the essence of what I am saying. The DM needs to be able to challenge the players. Challenge is not restricted to Monsters, or traps. The players need to have their "reliable" talents removed once in a while to challenge them. The player that understands this is becoming more and more rare.

[ChubbyRain]

What other ability score would apply? I could see a case being made for CHA.

Toughness is part of hit points, which is why Constitution applies. But, it's not the bulk of Hit Points - most hit points come from class and level. (Of course, CON's hit points multiplying on level is the one thing I wish they'd kept ditched from 4e).

A fighter of 14 con is just as tough and burly as a 14 con wizard. The fighter class's extra HP come from non-toughness based elements of HP. Likewise, a 14 CON level 1 character is just as tough and stout as a 14 CON level 20 character. Those extra HP on the level 20 guy come from experience and narrative favor.

With the way the game is made I could use HP being like...

Racial/Monster or Class Hit Die (as normal)
Bonus to HP at all levels equal to Con or Cha.

Con still governs concentration saves and other saves/checks so going straight Cha for HP isn't going to be all that overpowering but a Sorcerer will typically out HP a Wizard or Rogue because of factors other than physical might, a lot like the Bard.

I wouldnt mind backgrounda giving bonuses to HP. An entertainer or soldier Wizard will have a higher HP background value than say a sage wizard.

The reason why HP is a mess is not only the mechanical side of things but because the mechanical side and the fluff/ribbon aide don't match up. This leads to many people taking HP the wrong way and you get DMs who do the same thing.

It's messed up in the same way as if finesse weapons were a property, yet didn't allow you to use your Dex for attack or damage. If the finesse property only said it was about using finesse but you still used Str for attack and damage.

[Talakeal]

The notion that one needs to constantly keep the players guessing and pull the rug out from under them to have any sort of challenge seems very odd to me. It is a bit like saying that chess (or most any other traditional game) cannot be a challenge unless you cheat, when clearly this isn't the case. It is especially odd considering that you can already stack the deck by simply putting legitimately hard tests in front of the PCs by, say, greasing all of the slopes or something. Also, does this only apply to skill tests or do people who advocate this also change how the players spells and combat abilities work from moment to moment?



We also have a very weird thing going on in this, and other threads. We have people saying:

1: The skill DCs are supposed to change based on who is attempting them. The fact that you don't realize this is why you think the game is broken.
2: The skill DCs are supposed to change based on who is attempting them. The fact that you don't realize this is why you think the game isn't broken.
3: The skill DCs are supposed to remain static regardless of who is attempting them. The fact that you don't realize this is why you think the game is broken.
4: The skill DCs are supposed to remain static regardless of who is attempting them. The fact that you don't realize this is why you think the game isn't broken.

That is very odd, that we have people thinking that two opposing viewpoints are obviously intended, and further that each of those two groups is divided into opposing viewpoints on whether it is a good or a bad thing. I really wish 5e would be a little more concrete about which one was correct and why.

This goes one step further when you get people who think that DMs should also apply automatic success or failure based on the person attempting the task. This might work in theory, but in practice it is harder than it seems, especially when you have several people in the party with various skill levels all attempting the same task.


Now, as for my opinion on 5e skills:
They aren't terrible, but I don't like them. They need a few more guidelines for how to set the DC for various tasks and proficiency just doesn't scale fast enough. Its ok if you are just using it for "your primary profession is adventurer, any skills you have are just hobbies" and you are only rolling for stuff that might come up over the course of the adventure, but it is way too swingy to model a real person who is trained at the skill, and it is impossible to reliably succeed at almost anything unless you are a high level bard / rogue.

Frankly, a 1st level character in 3.X or even AD&D could be as competent as a 20th level character is in 5e, which I don't like.

Personally I never had a problem with 3.X as long as you stuck to the PHB instead of bringing in craziness from the other books.

4-23 skill ranks, -5 to +5 attribute bonus, +2 MW tool, and ~+5 from feats and class abilities was about the right range when skills typically scaled from about 5-30.

Now, I thought that the cross class system was too restrictive, there are too many "can't use untrained" or "can't use without a specific class ability" skills, synergies were a PITA, and a lot of the skills are redundant.

However Pathfinder has fixed almost all of my complaints about it, particularly if you use some (but not all!) of the fixes in Unchained, and I consider it to be the best skill system in any edition of D&D, if not any mainstream RPG ever, and if you stick to core only e6 almost perfectly models human capability, although the d20 is quite a bit swingier than reality.

[Fwiffo86]

1: The skill DCs are supposed to change based on who is attempting them. The fact that you don't realize this is why you think the game is broken.
2: The skill DCs are supposed to change based on who is attempting them. The fact that you don't realize this is why you think the game isn't broken.
3: The skill DCs are supposed to remain static regardless of who is attempting them. The fact that you don't realize this is why you think the game is broken.
4: The skill DCs are supposed to remain static regardless of who is attempting them. The fact that you don't realize this is why you think the game isn't broken.

I'm in the DCs are static based on the thing that generates the DC. Stuck wooden door is 5. Locked and stuck wooden door is 10. The DC's calculated against a commoners supposed proficiency and skill. Thus High level character deal with things that are beyond commoners.



Frankly, a 1st level character in 3.X or even AD&D could be as competent as a 20th level character is in 5e, which I don't like.

Due to bounded accuracy, this is an apples and oranges comparison unfortunately.



Personally I never had a problem with 3.X as long as you stuck to the PHB instead of bringing in craziness from the other books.

Amen brother.

[Pex]

But, but... in 3.5 it also says that the DM decides every DC based on the tables, and there was also the issue with spot and search checks, or which kind of knowledge could you use to figure out something about a monster, or whether to use gather information or diplomacy, and probably a few other issues.

Since people have free will and capability to interpret the rules, it is normal that different people will understand a particular situation in a different way. That's nothing new and it doesn't depend on the skill system you use, it's just inherent to human being.

Yes, and those tables give benchmarks so that DMs can judge an appropriate DC for the situation and players to know what their character is capable of doing. A game can't possibly provide DCs for every possible use of a skill, so providing guidelines will have to do. 5E doesn't have guidelines. 3E built upon those guidelines for new guidelines needed as play developed, such as Knowledge Arcana can be used for knowledge of dragons, Knowledge Planes to be used for knowledge of demons, i. e. monster lore. Pathfinder refined it allowing the player to ask the DM questions about a creature. DC is 15 + CR. You get one question + one question for every 5 you beat the DC.

[Talakeal]

Due to bounded accuracy, this is an apples and oranges comparison unfortunately.
.

I agree that it is because of bounded accuracy, but I don't think it is quite an apples and oranges comparison; you simply take two characters and compare their bonuses vs. the DC of the task they set out to accomplish. A 5e character has a maximum skill bonus of d20+11 (assuming they aren't a rogue), against DC with an average of ~15 and a maximum of ~30. A level 1 3.X character can get a bonus of ~d20+13 right out of the gate against a DC with an average of ~15 and a maximum of ~30.

[ChubbyRain]

Amen brother.

Core was the most broken of all of 3e, everyone acts like it was the splat books was what caused problems when the splat books actually fixed the issues (mostly).

Here is what core 3.5 gave us.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/glibness.htm

10 Min/Level +30 on Bluff checks... Yeah splat books were the problem... :smallsigh:

[Talakeal]

Core was the most broken of all of 3e, everyone acts like it was the splat books was what caused problems when the splat books actually fixed the issues (mostly).

Here is what core 3.5 gave us.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/glibness.htm

10 Min/Level +30 on Bluff checks... Yeah splat books were the problem... :smallsigh:

Yes, spells supersede skills. Knock makes disable device useless, invisibility makes hide useless, spider climb makes climb useless, fly makes jump useless, fabricate makes craft useless, charm makes diplomacy useless, divinations make knowledge skills useless etc.

I personally don't see that as a problem with the skill system so much as a problem with the magic system. And even then I am not sure it is a problem unless you have some serious 15MWD stuff going on and can cast spells freely as often as they are needed.

[Psikerlord]

Well, basically, this explains it:

That quote was AWESOME.

And just to reiterate, there are no skill checks in 5e. Just ability checks. Sometimes the DM will let you add your prof bonus to the roll if you have a certain skill or background or tool. Or sometimes advantage/disad. Or some other modifier.

The flexibility of ability checks is a massive improvement on 3rd and 4th. You can now try anything again, and the DM will give you a ruling on it, instead of looking up a defined list of things under a skill heading with fixed DCs (which discouraged creativity and options and encouraged min maxed Acrobats and so on in 3e, uurghh).

Good day

[Fwiffo86]

I agree that it is because of bounded accuracy, but I don't think it is quite an apples and oranges comparison; you simply take two characters and compare their bonuses vs. the DC of the task they set out to accomplish. A 5e character has a maximum skill bonus of d20+11 (assuming they aren't a rogue), against DC with an average of ~15 and a maximum of ~30. A level 1 3.X character can get a bonus of ~d20+13 right out of the gate against a DC with an average of ~15 and a maximum of ~30.

looking at only numbers, I can see your point. However, in 3.5 there was no cap to how high a DC could go. Characters can reach it with the appropriate equipment and specializations. Thus, there is no unattainable difficulty. (Its what? Acrobatics 100 to walk on air in the epic book?)

No such mechanic exists in 5e.

DC 30 in 5e might as well be DC 100 in 3.5. The two are just not comparable in any reliable way to draw accurate and representative comparisons.

[Tehnar]

The 5th Edition DMG is very explicit about the fact this is the way the game is supposed to work. When the DM believes that a task has a meaningful consequence for failure (this is the explicit condition given for needing a roll) and has a chance of failure for the character, they call for an attribute check. The player can add their proficiency bonus to the check if they believe a Skill that they are proficient in is relevant, or a Tool they have proficiency with could be used. (I extend that to give proficiency based on background, but that's now RAW). Essentially all you are deciding is if proficiency applies or not, your table clearly gets to set standards for how you decide that. Skills are only one suggested way of getting proficiency added. This covers the "I should be able to do that because I'm an X, but don't have the skill" sort of issue.

As an aside the DMG also has pretty good guidelines for deciding when to have a roll or not. It makes it clear that if you think the character can never achieve the task (for example a knowledge skill that they don't have) then they don't get to roll. No roll, not even a 20, will succeed. On the other hand if you believe that the task is trivial for a person (like the maths examples given above) then again no roll, they will always succeed. Similarly it suggests that if a task can be achieved just with repeated tries, then it auto-succeeds in roughly ten times as long as needed to try it once, i.e. the 5E equivalent of the Take 10/20 rule. You should only roll if :


Success is not guaranteed for this character.
Success is possible for this character
Time is a factor (or plenty of time still doesn't ensure success)
Failure is meaningful.
Failure is interesting.


There is an optional rule in the DMG for doing away with rolls based on comparing the DC to the Passive Skill, which basically gives everyone who is trained a version of reliable talents, and which I think would be intended to replace the guideline approach above, but it does suggest that there are issues with it, such as players always matching the auto-success people with every task, and task resolution becoming boring. Also it has a weird thing where the trivial level DC changes based on character level (from 10 to 15 as you go up in level) which is enough of an ugly hack that I wouldn't use it myself.

Lets see how this plays out in a example to see how much work and decisions the DM has to make.

The players decided to infiltrate a keep inside the city. During prep they received a detailed description of the keep. Later they successfully infiltrate the keep, but are found out, and after a brief fight they are on the run from the guards. They end up on the outer ramparts with the guards hot on their heels. A obvious escape routes come up:

Jump to the nearest buildings off the ramparts, but the distance is too great to be considered a safe jumping distance, though it is close for a couple of players. The players ask how likely does my character think it is to make the jump? So what does a DM do? He goes through the checklist above:


Success is not guaranteed for this character. True, as no character can make it safely per the rules
Success is possible for this character True, as I the DM think some characters could make it. I have to consult the character sheets though.
Time is a factor (or plenty of time still doesn't ensure success) Yes, the guards are right behind them.
Failure is meaningful. Yes if they don't make it they fall and die.
Failure is interesting. Character death is interesting.

The list was no help at all to the players or the DM trying to come up with a DC (or DC's). So he consults the players character sheets, and there he sees a character with 19 STR but no proficiency in athletics and a character with 17 STR but with proficiency in athletics, and a character with 10 STR but with expertise in athletics, and lastly a STR 10 character with no proficiency. Lets say the jump distance is 25 feet. The DM is confused now. Does he set different DC's for each character? The same DC for all?

If he sets a static DC for all then a poor jumper can make it but a good jumper could fail. If he allows some to autosucceed that means the next time 25' jumps come up the players will expect to autosucceed those as well. Different DC's for all, but what would those be? If they players notice, will they be confused by the randomness? What lowers the DC more: background, expertise or raw ability score?

While the DM is thinking about the above questions, the players start asking how fast can you accelerated climb, or what time does it take to don a disguise, each with more questions for the DM to ponder. This wastes a lot of time which the DM could have spent describing the angry shouts of the guards, setting up the next scene or something that really contributes to the story. After all questions are done with, choices are hard to make because the DC's are essentially random. Not to mention the discussion that occurs if one player think the DM set the DC too high (especially if the character fell to his death and said character had a good STR (athletics) modifier).
.
What this turns out is players playing a game of "Mother may I?" with the DM and asking to do things they think their DM will allow, not necessarily what their characters can do. Such a game devolves entirely into DM fiat, where players are no longer playing their characters but playing their DM.

[KorvinStarmast]

Actually it is an effect of the HP system not being well defined.
We disagree on how much granularity this tool requires, it seems.

It is defined well enough, at this point, though perhaps in original D & D it wasn't.

In subsequent editions the game authors have tried to explain what the HP tool reflects.

It accounts for the narrative in movies that we have all seen.

Some of the soldiers and enemies in a movie are "one shot one kill" and the hero, as well as the arch villain, take multiple wounds and get exhausted and yet they still fight on. Finally, a killing blow is struck. (Heh, in old Empire of the Petal Throne rules, whomever got the killing blow got the XP. I think I still have that rule book somewhere. In a box. In the attic).

See hundreds of the extended fight scenes in a wide variety of movies. (In FoTR, Boromir ends up running out of HP, but Aragorn doesn't, in the same extended skirmish/battle with the orcs).

As a tool HP helps that sort of narrative play out in game.

Since HP is a complete mix of physical wounds, luck, mental wounds, exhaustion, and whatever else...There you go, in your own words. A good enough definition of what it represents so that numbers and dice can be used to construct a narrative.

At some point, playability is more important than accounting. (I think we both actually agree on that).

Players and DMs a like feel that there should be some sort of tell that says if the monster is at full, half, or whatever other number of HP.
There is guidance in the DMG to cover that. I was reading it last night. The passage suggests that once a foe/monster is reduced by half or more, you can indicate that it's looking worse for wear and tear. That isn't the same as revealing "how many HP does it have left" since either the average or what was actually rolled (each DM will have a preference for that) remains known only to the DM. That is the intention. I am not so sure that DM's want players to know how many HP a monster has. Depeond upon the situation.

Also spells don't say "you heal the target for some HP" and leave it up to the DM. The spells that heal will say very specifically 2d8+Wis hit points.
Actually, the DM can indeed keep track of player HP as well (true HP) as my illustration from deep history suggests. Whomever rolls it, the DM can keep a tally sheet going on your health. (But unless you have a deputy DM, this becomes unwieldy very quickly. We tried it in a few games where we had some people not being as honest in their player sheet math as the rest of the players ... accountancy gets in the way of game play, to say the least).
It's a lot less work for the DM to let the players take care of their accounting and bookkeeping in game, and it helps the characters make decisions based on "how they feel" during a combat. That feature of it, which is probably how we all do it anyway, adds to player agency.

You the player know how healthy you are, and that isn't what got the discussion started. It was metagaming about what are supposed to be unknowns to the players. (If you keep hitting that wererat and the sumbitch isn't dead yet, it may take a while to learn that a normal weapon won't kill him ... )

If the character knows how much more on average a spell will heal then people must know about hit points or how messed up the target is in some way. As noted, guidance on how to handle that is already in the DMG. This is where DM as narrator fits nicely.

HP may be meta but at the same time it isn't meta. Sort of, when we refer to the monsters' HP, yes.

video game HP is the product of D&D
We agree on that, of course.

The point I was making was the Expectation of the player that the player would know how many HP his monstrous enemy has. IMO, the use of HP bars in a variety of video games has contributed to that. It would be unfair to say that's the only contributor, so if that was what you objected to initially, thinking that I meant sole contributor, objection is understood.

[KorvinStarmast]

Yes, spells supersede skills. Knock makes disable device useless, invisibility makes hide useless, spider climb makes climb useless, fly makes jump useless, fabricate makes craft useless, charm makes diplomacy useless, divinations make knowledge skills useless etc.

I personally don't see that as a problem with the skill system so much as a problem with the magic system. And even then I am not sure it is a problem unless you have some serious 15MWD stuff going on and can cast spells freely as often as they are needed.
Since magic in most cases isn't "at will" and has a cost, it may not be a problem at all. The ability check method combines risk, reward, and chance of failure. The DM can in any case rule chance of failure (like ability check for "I wash my face") to = zero. This is an adventure game. With no chance for failure there is no meaningful success.
(Protip to LL parents who give all of the kids on all of the teams trophies: you're doing it wrong).

[Talakeal]

looking at only numbers, I can see your point. However, in 3.5 there was no cap to how high a DC could go. Characters can reach it with the appropriate equipment and specializations. Thus, there is no unattainable difficulty. (Its what? Acrobatics 100 to walk on air in the epic book?)

No such mechanic exists in 5e.

DC 30 in 5e might as well be DC 100 in 3.5. The two are just not comparable in any reliable way to draw accurate and representative comparisons.

The set DCs in both edition's PHB are typically about 30. There are only a couple instances in 3.5 where they go higher, and that is normally the result of stacking modifiers. Of course, I do agree that since 5e lacks concrete guidelines what exactly its DC 30 models is a bit harder to judge.


That quote was AWESOME.

And just to reiterate, there are no skill checks in 5e. Just ability checks. Sometimes the DM will let you add your prof bonus to the roll if you have a certain skill or background or tool. Or sometimes advantage/disad. Or some other modifier.

The flexibility of ability checks is a massive improvement on 3rd and 4th. You can now try anything again, and the DM will give you a ruling on it, instead of looking up a defined list of things under a skill heading with fixed DCs (which discouraged creativity and options and encouraged min maxed Acrobats and so on in 3e, uurghh).

Good day

3E also had a system for ability checks without any clearly defined difficulties.

The only thing it has are guidelines for the DM to use to set DCs for some common skill checks, in my mind this makes the game easier and more fun for everyone, but I can see how someone who just likes to wing it might prefer that aspect.

Also, sorry to nitpick, but Acrobatics was not a skill in 3E, they had separate Balance, Tumble, and Escape Artist skills.

[Fwiffo86]

Also, sorry to nitpick, but Acrobatics was not a skill in 3E, they had separate Balance, Tumble, and Escape Artist skills.

No worries. Maybe it was Tumble. I don't remember the specific skill. But when there are rules on how to use a "skill" check to walk on air, it may be "too" far. In either case, my point still stands. There isn't an upper limit to skills in 3.5 as defined by their own rules (see epic level handbook). I personally had a character with a default skill check of +85 before I rolled the die.

The two are just not comparable.

[Talakeal]

No worries. Maybe it was Tumble. I don't remember the specific skill. But when there are rules on how to use a "skill" check to walk on air, it may be "too" far. In either case, my point still stands. There isn't an upper limit to skills in 3.5 as defined by their own rules (see epic level handbook). I personally had a character with a default skill check of +85 before I rolled the die.

The two are just not comparable.

Do keep in mind, I was talking about skills as presented in the PHB.

I 100% agree that once you add in all the splat books, especially the ELH, the skill system becomes a meaningless muddle.

[Icewraith]

Lets see how this plays out in a example to see how much work and decisions the DM has to make.

The players decided to infiltrate a keep inside the city. During prep they received a detailed description of the keep. Later they successfully infiltrate the keep, but are found out, and after a brief fight they are on the run from the guards. They end up on the outer ramparts with the guards hot on their heels. A obvious escape routes come up:

Jump to the nearest buildings off the ramparts, but the distance is too great to be considered a safe jumping distance, though it is close for a couple of players. The players ask how likely does my character think it is to make the jump? So what does a DM do? He goes through the checklist above:


Success is not guaranteed for this character. True, as no character can make it safely per the rules
Success is possible for this character True, as I the DM think some characters could make it. I have to consult the character sheets though.
Time is a factor (or plenty of time still doesn't ensure success) Yes, the guards are right behind them.
Failure is meaningful. Yes if they don't make it they fall and die.
Failure is interesting. Character death is interesting.

The list was no help at all to the players or the DM trying to come up with a DC (or DC's). So he consults the players character sheets, and there he sees a character with 19 STR but no proficiency in athletics and a character with 17 STR but with proficiency in athletics, and a character with 10 STR but with expertise in athletics, and lastly a STR 10 character with no proficiency. Lets say the jump distance is 25 feet. The DM is confused now. Does he set different DC's for each character? The same DC for all?

If he sets a static DC for all then a poor jumper can make it but a good jumper could fail. If he allows some to autosucceed that means the next time 25' jumps come up the players will expect to autosucceed those as well. Different DC's for all, but what would those be? If they players notice, will they be confused by the randomness? What lowers the DC more: background, expertise or raw ability score?

While the DM is thinking about the above questions, the players start asking how fast can you accelerated climb, or what time does it take to don a disguise, each with more questions for the DM to ponder. This wastes a lot of time which the DM could have spent describing the angry shouts of the guards, setting up the next scene or something that really contributes to the story. After all questions are done with, choices are hard to make because the DC's are essentially random. Not to mention the discussion that occurs if one player think the DM set the DC too high (especially if the character fell to his death and said character had a good STR (athletics) modifier).
.
What this turns out is players playing a game of "Mother may I?" with the DM and asking to do things they think their DM will allow, not necessarily what their characters can do. Such a game devolves entirely into DM fiat, where players are no longer playing their characters but playing their DM.

All the DM has to do is pick a static DC and let the players figure out their actions based on that. 25 feet is quite a lot to make in a jump, so the choices are probably hard (DC 15) or very hard (DC 20). If the DM determines the non-physical character has next to no chance of making the jump, then the players either need to make the decision to abandon that PC to their fate (and the guards might just beat the PC unconscious and throw them in the dungeon to be tortured, leaving the other characters to plan a rescue mission) or come up with a different escape plan.

If any of them have a grappling hook handy or even a rope (or if one is handy), the PC that's best at jumping can hand another PC the end of the rope and jump across. The pc that's bad at jumping can hang onto the end of the rope (once the rope is secured to the new building) and swing down into the side of the building (taking falling damage for 25 feet is better than falling from a height everyone is sure will kill the character)and the other PCs can pull him up. PCs that don't make the jump might be able to make a dex save to catch themselves on a ledge (or even the roof they're trying to jump to if they don't miss the jump DC by too much) or window on the way down.

Additionally, anytime a rules interpretation might immediately result in character death, it's not unreasonable to crack open a PHB and double check the rules or guidelines.

The only real issues with the situation described are that the DM isn't willing to let a character die as a consequence of making a fair ruling, has either decided there aren't or hasn't thought about ways a character might not die due to not making the jump, and wants to move on with the story or describe the guards shouting instead of making sure he gets this potentially pivotal and awesome escape scene set up fairly. Additionally, the characters haven't planned ahead or they might have seen the need for a possible rooftop escape (especially with the keep laid out in so much detail), in which case a potion/scroll of fly/levitate/feather fall (if the DM determines they are available) or some rope would have been a wise investment for the character bad at jumping.

Remember, even if the DM sets the DC at 15, a character rolling with a +10 bonus has a 20% chance of failure. DC 15 is hard.

[Hawkstar]

Exactly! That's my problem with the system. I have to relearn the game just because I play with a different DM. I shouldn't have to.You have to do that with EVERY edition of D&D. In 5th edition, there are enough constants that you don't have to 'relearn' the game. Just tweak your expectations.


It really depends on what the check was for. If it was a check to stop a bomb from going off, obviously it's a one-off. But if it's a check to climb a tree, then yeah, try, try again.Except you practically never make a check to climb a tree, unless it's to do something like try to climb up the tree to avoid a stampede of Dire beasts, then continue to hold on as the tree thrashes around from the force of the beasts moving around it. Or climb a cliff after getting seriously injured, with each failure throwing you closer to the stampede. Or a check to try to throw said person back into the abyss while looking like trying (And failing) to assist him up.

Not really things you can reroll.


Lets see how this plays out in a example to see how much work and decisions the DM has to make.

The players decided to infiltrate a keep inside the city. During prep they received a detailed description of the keep. Later they successfully infiltrate the keep, but are found out, and after a brief fight they are on the run from the guards. They end up on the outer ramparts with the guards hot on their heels. A obvious escape routes come up:

Jump to the nearest buildings off the ramparts, but the distance is too great to be considered a safe jumping distance, though it is close for a couple of players. The players ask how likely does my character think it is to make the jump? So what does a DM do? He goes through the checklist above:


Success is not guaranteed for this character. True, as no character can make it safely per the rules
Success is possible for this character True, as I the DM think some characters could make it. I have to consult the character sheets though.
Time is a factor (or plenty of time still doesn't ensure success) Yes, the guards are right behind them.
Failure is meaningful. Yes if they don't make it they fall and die.
Failure is interesting. Character death is interesting.

The list was no help at all to the players or the DM trying to come up with a DC (or DC's). So he consults the players character sheets, and there he sees a character with 19 STR but no proficiency in athletics and a character with 17 STR but with proficiency in athletics, and a character with 10 STR but with expertise in athletics, and lastly a STR 10 character with no proficiency. Lets say the jump distance is 25 feet. The DM is confused now. Does he set different DC's for each character? The same DC for all?

If he sets a static DC for all then a poor jumper can make it but a good jumper could fail. If he allows some to autosucceed that means the next time 25' jumps come up the players will expect to autosucceed those as well. Different DC's for all, but what would those be? If they players notice, will they be confused by the randomness? What lowers the DC more: background, expertise or raw ability score?Ehh... math says the STR 19 guy is jumping an extra 6 feet/30% further, so he should have a significantly lower DC than the guys who have to jump 15 feet/150% further than they normally could. I'd probably set the DC to 10+ 1/2 the number of extra feet to jump. A pole to vault with would double the effective jumping distance if you're proficient in Athletics.

[Pex]

You have to do that with EVERY edition of D&D. In 5th edition, there are enough constants that you don't have to 'relearn' the game. Just tweak your expectations.



DC guidelines printed in a book do not change when the DM changes. A task of DC X will always be DC X regardless of DM. My character changes so my capability of achieving the task will change. How much game resource investment I put into the ability to do the task will also be a factor. Party members can provide bonuses. Different DMs means different adventures. Various obstacles and NPC/Monster abilities can affect my ability to do the DC X task, but it's still DC X. If something changes the DC, even if I don't know in character why I know out of character it happened. Given my DM is not a jerk I don't have to worry about it out of character and have the fun in character finding out why. Knowing the guidelines, if tasks are always DC X + delta Y even when I know no circumstances should be giving delta Y then I can determine if the DM is making an Honest True mistake, there is a secret circumstance that will give me a wonderful Aha! moment when I find it, or the DM is being a jerk. In those cases the DM is being a jerk, my feet vote.

5E doesn't have guidelines. I have no idea what's normal for a campaign. It's not possible to ask a DM what DC he'd set for every hypothetical situation before the game starts. I start off not knowing how to play a significant part of the game. In those cases the DM is being a jerk my feet still vote but now he gets to call me names of power gaming rollplaying munchkin because I don't like his "rulings", and I don't have the rules to back me up.

[Psikerlord]

Lets see how this plays out in a example to see how much work and decisions the DM has to make.

The players decided to infiltrate a keep inside the city. During prep they received a detailed description of the keep. Later they successfully infiltrate the keep, but are found out, and after a brief fight they are on the run from the guards. They end up on the outer ramparts with the guards hot on their heels. A obvious escape routes come up:

Jump to the nearest buildings off the ramparts, but the distance is too great to be considered a safe jumping distance, though it is close for a couple of players. The players ask how likely does my character think it is to make the jump? So what does a DM do? He goes through the checklist above:


Success is not guaranteed for this character. True, as no character can make it safely per the rules
Success is possible for this character True, as I the DM think some characters could make it. I have to consult the character sheets though.
Time is a factor (or plenty of time still doesn't ensure success) Yes, the guards are right behind them.
Failure is meaningful. Yes if they don't make it they fall and die.
Failure is interesting. Character death is interesting.

The list was no help at all to the players or the DM trying to come up with a DC (or DC's). So he consults the players character sheets, and there he sees a character with 19 STR but no proficiency in athletics and a character with 17 STR but with proficiency in athletics, and a character with 10 STR but with expertise in athletics, and lastly a STR 10 character with no proficiency. Lets say the jump distance is 25 feet. The DM is confused now. Does he set different DC's for each character? The same DC for all?

If he sets a static DC for all then a poor jumper can make it but a good jumper could fail. If he allows some to autosucceed that means the next time 25' jumps come up the players will expect to autosucceed those as well. Different DC's for all, but what would those be? If they players notice, will they be confused by the randomness? What lowers the DC more: background, expertise or raw ability score?

While the DM is thinking about the above questions, the players start asking how fast can you accelerated climb, or what time does it take to don a disguise, each with more questions for the DM to ponder. This wastes a lot of time which the DM could have spent describing the angry shouts of the guards, setting up the next scene or something that really contributes to the story. After all questions are done with, choices are hard to make because the DC's are essentially random. Not to mention the discussion that occurs if one player think the DM set the DC too high (especially if the character fell to his death and said character had a good STR (athletics) modifier).
.
What this turns out is players playing a game of "Mother may I?" with the DM and asking to do things they think their DM will allow, not necessarily what their characters can do. Such a game devolves entirely into DM fiat, where players are no longer playing their characters but playing their DM.

As DM I resolved this scenario DC in about 3 seconds. I thought yep it's a pretty hard jump, DC 15. If it had been easy, DC 10, and very hard DC 20. The only complexity are the jumping rules themselves. Can a PC even jump 25'? I would have said the gap was smaller. But I don't have my PHB handy.

[Fwiffo86]

DC guidelines printed in a book do not change when the DM changes. A task of DC X will always be DC X regardless of DM. My character changes so my capability of achieving the task will change. How much game resource investment I put into the ability to do the task will also be a factor. Party members can provide bonuses. Different DMs means different adventures. Various obstacles and NPC/Monster abilities can affect my ability to do the DC X task, but it's still DC X. If something changes the DC, even if I don't know in character why I know out of character it happened. Given my DM is not a jerk I don't have to worry about it out of character and have the fun in character finding out why. Knowing the guidelines, if tasks are always DC X + delta Y even when I know no circumstances should be giving delta Y then I can determine if the DM is making an Honest True mistake, there is a secret circumstance that will give me a wonderful Aha! moment when I find it, or the DM is being a jerk. In those cases the DM is being a jerk, my feet vote.

5E doesn't have guidelines. I have no idea what's normal for a campaign. It's not possible to ask a DM what DC he'd set for every hypothetical situation before the game starts. I start off not knowing how to play a significant part of the game. In those cases the DM is being a jerk my feet still vote but now he gets to call me names of power gaming rollplaying munchkin because I don't like his "rulings", and I don't have the rules to back me up.

I guess I just can't get behind this thought process. If a normal person will have a hard time doing the task, its "hard". That DC is set by the rules. If the task is easy for a normal person, then the task is "easy". The DC is set by the rules. Again, for normal people. Characters are not normal, and thus the DCs aren't targeting them to enable the "heroic fantasy" feel. What is hard for a normal, is most likely a DC the character will easily achieve.

I fail to see where you believe the DCs are fluid. Regardless of the task, a locked wooden door will always be DC X. No matter what level the character is, the DC of locked wooden doors will be the same. Unless your argument is that DMs will have a different opinion of what hard is. Even then, your issue would take one single question to resolve before game begins.

"What do you qualify as an easy, hard, etc. task when making skill checks?" The answer should provide everything you need to grasp what you need.

[KorvinStarmast]

5E doesn't have guidelines. I have no idea what's normal for a campaign. It's not possible to ask a DM what DC he'd set for every hypothetical situation before the game starts. I start off not knowing how to play a significant part of the game. In those cases the DM is being a jerk my feet still vote but now he gets to call me names of power gaming rollplaying munchkin because I don't like his "rulings", and I don't have the rules to back me up.
There are a plethora of computer based video games and console based video games that will surely entertain you without the messy business of dealing with other people.

Best wishes.

[Naanomi]

Jumping, lifting, and other 'feats of strength' are the one place I would change the DC based on character...

After all, a 25 foot jump is an auto-success for some (Mike the Monk who can jump that far without a roll based on STR and class features); an easy task for others ( Chuck the Champion can jump 23 feet, he is rolling for the extra 2 feet only) or nearly impossible (Willy Wizard's rat familiar has an extra 22 feet to clear)

[Fwiffo86]

Jumping, lifting, and other 'feats of strength' are the one place I would change the DC based on character...

After all, a 25 foot jump is an auto-success for some (Mike the Monk who can jump that far without a roll based on STR and class features); an easy task for others ( Chuck the Champion can jump 23 feet, he is rolling for the extra 2 feet only) or nearly impossible (Willy Wizard's rat familiar has an extra 22 feet to clear)

Even then, you really aren't changing the DC. If the jump is auto-success, no roll. +2 feet is easy, +22 feet nearly impossible. That isn't changing the DC as related to the difficulty for a normal person.

It's automatically successful to jump your STR determined distance. (No roll)
Adding 2 feet to your distance is relatively easy. (DC 5)
Adding 22 feet is exceptionally difficulty without assistance of some sort. (DC 25)

[Icewraith]

DC guidelines printed in a book do not change when the DM changes. A task of DC X will always be DC X regardless of DM. My character changes so my capability of achieving the task will change. How much game resource investment I put into the ability to do the task will also be a factor. Party members can provide bonuses. Different DMs means different adventures. Various obstacles and NPC/Monster abilities can affect my ability to do the DC X task, but it's still DC X. If something changes the DC, even if I don't know in character why I know out of character it happened. Given my DM is not a jerk I don't have to worry about it out of character and have the fun in character finding out why. Knowing the guidelines, if tasks are always DC X + delta Y even when I know no circumstances should be giving delta Y then I can determine if the DM is making an Honest True mistake, there is a secret circumstance that will give me a wonderful Aha! moment when I find it, or the DM is being a jerk. In those cases the DM is being a jerk, my feet vote.

5E doesn't have guidelines. I have no idea what's normal for a campaign. It's not possible to ask a DM what DC he'd set for every hypothetical situation before the game starts. I start off not knowing how to play a significant part of the game. In those cases the DM is being a jerk my feet still vote but now he gets to call me names of power gaming rollplaying munchkin because I don't like his "rulings", and I don't have the rules to back me up.

5e absolutely has guidelines. If something is hard, it's DC 15. If something is easy, it's DC 5. If you can do it right if you take your time, you don't even have to roll. If you want to do something that you think is easy, and the DM tells you it's hard because X, that's the exact same as having a static DC out of the book in 3.5 and the DM adjusting it due to circumstance. What's easy and what's hard to do in a TTRPG has always been dependent on the situation at hand and the DM's judgment.

If anything, 5e is a relief because unlike 3.5, all of the skills have the same default success curve based on the difficulty of the task at hand. You don't need to have a +60 bonus to reliably make use of diplomacy and a +14 bonus to always reliably tumble to avoid AoOs and max ranks in knowledge (something or other) and a solid roll to accurately recall what's up with monsters that are appropriate for your level.

The difference between 3.5 and 5e is that in 3.5, the book is giving the DM arbitrarily determined base DCs for some generic tasks and the DM is modifying them based on the circumstances, and in 5e the DM is simply cutting to the chase and determining the DC based on the situation. Because of this, the 5e math doesn't need to scale with level. A dc 40 check for a 20th level character with a 20 stat fully invested in the relevant skill in 3.5 is a DC 23 check for a 20th level proficient character with a 20 stat in 5e (both need a 12).

If you're having trouble calibrating your skill expectations to 5e, DC 25, very difficult, is something that even the highest level characters that are actually good at the skill will fail at 70% or more of the time.

[Pex]

I guess I just can't get behind this thought process. If a normal person will have a hard time doing the task, its "hard". That DC is set by the rules. If the task is easy for a normal person, then the task is "easy". The DC is set by the rules. Again, for normal people. Characters are not normal, and thus the DCs aren't targeting them to enable the "heroic fantasy" feel. What is hard for a normal, is most likely a DC the character will easily achieve.

I fail to see where you believe the DCs are fluid. Regardless of the task, a locked wooden door will always be DC X. No matter what level the character is, the DC of locked wooden doors will be the same. Unless your argument is that DMs will have a different opinion of what hard is. Even then, your issue would take one single question to resolve before game begins.

"What do you qualify as an easy, hard, etc. task when making skill checks?" The answer should provide everything you need to grasp what you need.

Yes, that's exactly the problem. Your follow up question doesn't help, in my view, because each skill check is distinct and unknown before the game starts. Even accepting it as valid, the fact that it is needed is the problem itself of 5E skills. It's an area I cannot rely upon as consistent from game to game of different DMs. Asking the DM to clarify his position on skill use for each new campaign is "relearning the rules".

[Kurald Galain]

As DM I resolved this scenario DC in about 3 seconds. I thought yep it's a pretty hard jump, DC 15. If it had been easy, DC 10, and very hard DC 20.


If something is easy, it's DC 5 ...
If you're having trouble calibrating your skill expectations to 5e, DC 25, very difficult,

Well, that's a clear example of the lack of guidelines. Right there, one DM says that easy = DC 10 and very hard = DC 20, whereas another says that easy = DC 5 and very hard = DC 25.

That basically proves the point Pex and others have been making.

[Fwiffo86]

Yes, that's exactly the problem. Your follow up question doesn't help, in my view, because each skill check is distinct and unknown before the game starts. Even accepting it as valid, the fact that it is needed is the problem itself of 5E skills. It's an area I cannot rely upon as consistent from game to game of different DMs. Asking the DM to clarify his position on skill use for each new campaign is "relearning the rules".

This phenomenon is not exclusive to 5e. Every skill check in every edition is "different" as you say. It seems more likely that your issue is with how skills are done in D&D, and quite frankly, every single skill in any other TTRP for that matter. The DC at the time of the skill check is changed based on situation and DM/GM opinion regardless of the game. This is universal in every game that has skills. To do otherwise would require someone take the time to assign values to every conceivable task and modifier that affects that task. If you find this issue to be particularly vexing, I find it hard to conceive of any game that you would actually enjoy.

As far as "relearning the rules" You are being rather illogical with this statement. You are attempting to find fault so that you can have something to debate about. I could sympathize with you relearning the rules if you had to relearn the combat and spellcasting system because it was completely different. Or if you had to suddenly work with completely different character classes that you are unfamiliar with. You are not "relearning" rules. You are getting simple clarifications so that you can proceed with the game. One clarification does not equate to "rules".



Well, that's a clear example of the lack of guidelines. Right there, one DM says that easy = DC 10 and very hard = DC 20, whereas another says that easy = DC 5 and very hard = DC 25.

That basically proves the point Pex and others have been making.

Or it points to the more likely scenario that one or both of them were away from book and were working of memory without an accurate reference.

[Pex]

No, 3E/Pathfinder provides tables that give specific examples of skill use and their DC. Sometimes the DC is a formula, such as CR for monster lore checks or spell level for spellcraft check, but a DC is given. If a situation does not match exactly what's in the book the DM can extrapolate an equivalence and use that DC. The difficulty of the task is set by the rules, game to game, DM to DM. What's adaptive is applying the situation in question to what's already published as guidelines.

An enemy spellcaster is casting a spell. I want to know what it is. In Pathfinder I roll a Spellcraft check of DC 15 + spell level. Every game. Every DM. If the DM changes it that's a House Rule that needs to be mentioned before the game starts, say +2 DC if an opposition school, +5 DC if not on class list. In 5E, what do I do? Perhaps the only common thing every DM will require is an Intelligence (Arcana) check. What's the DC? It's whatever the DM says which will be different than what another DM says. Is it easy? Is it hard? Do I have to be proficient to get a roll in the first place? Does the level of the spell matter? Does it matter if I'm capable of casting the spell level? Does it matter if the spell is on my class list? There is no clear cut answer. All can be yes. Some can be yes. In Pathfinder, the answer is the only thing that matters is spell level. You can like that or not like that and give House Rules, but there is a definitive answer.

[Kurald Galain]

An enemy spellcaster is casting a spell. I want to know what it is. In Pathfinder I roll a Spellcraft check of DC 15 + spell level. Every game. Every DM. If the DM changes it that's a House Rule that needs to be mentioned before the game starts, say +2 DC if an opposition school, +5 DC if not on class list. In 5E, what do I do? Perhaps the only common thing every DM will require is an Intelligence (Arcana) check. What's the DC? It's whatever the DM says which will be different than what another DM says. Is it easy? Is it hard? Do I have to be proficient to get a roll in the first place? Does the level of the spell matter? Does it matter if I'm capable of casting the spell level? Does it matter if the spell is on my class list? There is no clear cut answer. All can be yes. Some can be yes. In Pathfinder, the answer is the only thing that matters is spell level. You can like that or not like that and give House Rules, but there is a definitive answer.

Precisely.

Now suppose a player has this character concept in mind of a smart guy who can identify enemy spells. How does he build this character? In 3E/PF, this is straightforward: get a decent int and put ranks in spellcraft, perhaps dd skill focus; and now your character can reliably identify low-level spells by level three. There's also the understanding that more complex spells are harder to identify, which makes sense.

Now how does he build this character in 5E? Well, he basically can't. Regardless of how you build him, the character can't reliably identify a spell, and he's not going to stand out among his teammates who aren't trained in arcana, because they can likely do the same thing with (e.g.) perception checks if they ask nicely. The only way you can make this concept work is by (1) DM fiat and (2) hoping that the DM will remember and be consistent about this fiat throughout his campaign. And don't go telling me it's somehow overpowered to identify spells in a heroic fantasy setting.

[pwykersotz]

Precisely.

Now suppose a player has this character concept in mind of a smart guy who can identify enemy spells. How does he build this character? In 3E/PF, this is straightforward: get a decent int and put ranks in spellcraft, perhaps dd skill focus; and now your character can reliably identify low-level spells by level three. There's also the understanding that more complex spells are harder to identify, which makes sense.

Now how does he build this character in 5E? Well, he basically can't. Regardless of how you build him, the character can't reliably identify a spell, and he's not going to stand out among his teammates who aren't trained in arcana, because they can likely do the same thing with (e.g.) perception checks if they ask nicely. The only way you can make this concept work is by (1) DM fiat and (2) hoping that the DM will remember and be consistent about this fiat throughout his campaign. And don't go telling me it's somehow overpowered to identify spells in a heroic fantasy setting.

That is because you're treating this like a game where procedural generation is relevant. It's significantly less so in this game. This game is more results oriented. If the DM wants to make a creature or if anyone wants to make a spell, you take the result and compare it with existing material to determine where it fits. The same goes for your character who can identify enemy spells. Tell the GM you want the ability. The two of you can work out if you want it as a background trait, to be a function of a skill check, a feat, or anything else. The style of game the GM runs will determine how it goes.

These problems that keep getting brought up aren't problems with the game by itself, they're a function of unwillingness to expand beyond procedurally generating characters like you did in other editions.

[Kurald Galain]

That is because you're treating this like a game where procedural generation is relevant. It's significantly less so in this game. This game is more results oriented. If the DM wants to make a creature or if anyone wants to make a spell, you take the result and compare it with existing material to determine where it fits.

Right. So the player wants to make a character that can reliably identify spells. If the DM takes that result and compares it with existing material, he'll come to the conclusion that this isn't actually possible by the rules. And at that point, it's pretty common for DMs to either say "no", or to come up with something complicated that makes the ability practically unusable (e.g. the PC must make a touch attack and a perception check, then the NPC gets a saving throw). This is easy to see: if you ask a question like that in forums like these, you'll commonly get answers like those.

So you can say it's the DM's fault, but the fact of the matter is that in most RPGs, the game makes sure that the answer to this question is "yes", whereas 5E's answer is "no, but the DM might override it". That means that simple tricks you can pull off easily in other RPGs, require extensive negotiation and a permissive DM instead. Hmmmm... could you perhaps imagine that some players don't like to have to negotiate with the DM over every simple trick?

Once again, "In short, I want tools to use in the game, not a blank check to do what I want. I can already do what I want."

[pwykersotz]

Right. So the player wants to make a character that can reliably identify spells. If the DM takes that result and compares it with existing material, he'll come to the conclusion that this isn't actually possible by the rules. And at that point, it's pretty common for DMs to either say "no", or to come up with something complicated that makes the ability practically unusable (e.g. the PC must make a touch attack and a perception check, then the NPC gets a saving throw). This is easy to see: if you ask a question like that in forums like these, you'll commonly get answers like those.

So you can say it's the DM's fault, but the fact of the matter is that in most RPGs, the game makes sure that the answer to this question is "yes", whereas 5E's answer is "no, but the DM might override it". That means that simple tricks you can pull off easily in other RPGs, require extensive negotiation and a permissive DM instead. Hmmmm... could you perhaps imagine that some players don't like to have to negotiate with the DM over every simple trick?

Once again, "In short, I want tools to use in the game, not a blank check to do what I want. I can already do what I want."

Blank check takes it too far. What you're asking for is code. You want the whole thing programmed reliably, with the ability to insert new functions and subroutines that interact elegantly the whole way through but are nonetheless hard-coded.

What we have here is a WYSIWYG. Where several basic predesigned constructs and be seen and re-imagined quickly and fluidly with not much detailed interaction.

The system may not have the exact effect you want, but it works exactly as designed.

[KorvinStarmast]

Right. So the player wants to make a character that can reliably identify spells.
First off, you are already in a homebrew scenario. Check the class and skill mix already in the book. Spell Identifier isn't a class or subclass.

But is this really that hard? Go to skills/ability checks. Arcana? Perception? A combination of the two?

You can go as above, or craft a "skill" per the DMG guidelines on how to come up with new characters. Decide on what the core stat is that drives this skill. You then have a handy INT or WIS based ability check, add proficiency.

(But this guy's a specialist. Double or triple proficiency bonus if the character has cast the spell himself, or seen it done before.
So who keeps track? PLAYER keeps track of these on his char sheet, or DM keeps track on yet another DM Screen table, or both ... ).

But what if there are only the two: spell caster and character and no other distraction. It can be automatic if you know or have ever cast the spell before, or seen it cast. As soon as any distractions are involved, or you haven't seen it done, it is within the design model to require a skill check.

How to set the DC? Good question.

DC = 8+ spell level.
DC = 5+spell level.
DC = 2 + spell level.
DC = 2x spell level.
(Pick a number, go with it).

Situation: as with other things, it is rational to include plusses or minuses based on any visual obstruction, or being otherwise engaged by (for example) a gnoll trying to take you out with a flail while you are trying to figure out what that other spell caster is up to.

How hard is this, really? It isn't. This system lends itself to a player and a DM arriving at a way to implement your idea for a variant, or unique ability not already codified.

If you aren't willing to put in the work to get what you want in terms of flavor, theme, or variants then your complaint will fall on deaf ears.

If you really think this sort of thing ought to be in the rules, sit down and do the hard work: draft up a set of standards and criteria, send it to WoTC and suggest it be folded into the next release of stuff that they put out. One thing we can be sure of, WoTC makes money by publishing supplemental material, so there will be something more published.

You could become famous, after a fashion. (Instead of being just one more person complaining on an internet forum).

[Kurald Galain]

Blank check takes it too far. What you're asking for is code.
Wow, thanks for reading my mind!

Wait, no, you're dead wrong. What I want is a character who can reliably identify spells. What I get is a system that doesn't let me.


The system may not have the exact effect you want, but it works exactly as designed.
Yes, and that's precisely the problem. Unlike almost every other RPG on the market, 5E hasn't bothered to implement a solid skill system, and as a result, you cannot play characters that are good at any skill (unless that skill happens to be weaponry or spellcasting).

Many players are moderately skilled at certain things in real life, and want to be able to play characters that are at least as good as they are (because, you know, it's heroic fantasy). That the system doesn't allow you to do that, is the reason why we frequently have threads like this, and why DMs commonly create houserules.

On the other hand, this saves WOTC on development cost, and those cost savings are also working exactly as designed.

[Kurald Galain]

First off, you are already in a homebrew scenario. Check the class and skill mix already in the book.
Spell Identifier isn't a class or subclass.

But is this really that hard?
No, it's not hard. That's why I would expect the game designers to have put it in (at least for common tasks and scenarios).

Since they haven't, it only works if (1) my DM is willing to houserule, (2) he knows what he's doing rules-wise, and (3) he doesn't think this is overpowered. Whereas in most other systems, the game designers have simply put this in and it simply works, no questions asked.

[KorvinStarmast]

No, it's not hard. That's why I would expect the game designers to have put it in (at least for common tasks and scenarios).

Since they haven't, it only works if (1) my DM is willing to houserule, (2) he knows what he's doing rules-wise, and (3) he doesn't think this is overpowered. Whereas in most other systems, the game designers have simply put this in and it simply works, no questions asked.
Can you give an example? (I note that you are familiar with game design, so any submission you make might be more favorably received at WoTC than something that a mere fan/GM/player like myself might offer up).

[Fwiffo86]

Yes, and that's precisely the problem. Unlike almost every other RPG on the market, 5E hasn't bothered to implement a solid skill system, and as a result, you cannot play characters that are good at any skill (unless that skill happens to be weaponry or spellcasting).


This is just not true. Heavily codified skill systems such as the pathfinder modifications that keep getting mentioned are the exception, not the rule. Well more than half of the skill systems I have encountered are nothing more than a target number to meet or beat, with absolutely no listing of modifiers other than mentioning that they exist and the DM will modify your roll based on the situation.

GURPS - If you can find more than 3 codified modifiers to the majority of skills in GURPS I will be impressed. This is the most skill heavy game I am familiar with.

RIFTS - If you can find ANY modifiers to skills listed, please point them out.

CONTINUUM - Please point out where the skill modifiers per skill are?

D&D up to 2.0 - Please show where the codified modifiers for your skills are?

TRAVELLER - Where are the codified modifiers for the skills?

STAR WARS - Modifiers for skills? Page reference please.

[Kurald Galain]

Can you give an example? (I note that you are familiar with game design, so any submission you make might be more favorably received at WoTC than something that a mere fan/GM/player like myself might offer up).

Sure.

To increase consistency between DMs (or between sessions of a single DM with less-than-perfect memory) it helps to have tables with standard DCs for standard tasks. For instance, climbing a tree is DC 10, a wall DC 20, an ice wall DC 30. Popular RPGs like GURPS, Pathfinder, and Whitewolf all have tables like that.

To give characters more reliability in the skills they're trained in, it helps to have a mechanic where character skill gives a greater spread than the luck of the dice. For instance, note that in 5E skill training gives about a +4 modifier, whereas the dice have a 20-point spread (this means that luck is WAY more important than skill); and note how in several popular RPGs these numbers are pretty much the opposite (i.e. that skill is more important than luck).

For the first, I haven't really seen any good reasons for not having such a table (it's easy to write, doesn't require a lot of space, and people who don't want it can ignore it).
For the second, I realize this is very much a matter of taste. Generally speaking, heroic games (e.g. Exalted, 3E) have mechanics that allow characters to reliably succeed, whereas horror or slapstick games (e.g. Call of Chthulhu, Paranoia) have mechanics that let characters frequently fail for reasons beyond their control. It's interesting that 5E markets itself as a heroic game, but has a skill mechanic more suitable for other genres.

[pwykersotz]

Wow, thanks for reading my mind!

Wait, no, you're dead wrong. What I want is a character who can reliably identify spells. What I get is a system that doesn't let me.

:smallannoyed: It's just an internet discussion, man. Don't let it get to you. I thought I was keeping the spirit of your argument intact, I'm sorry that you disagree. It was just a metaphor to bridge our understanding.


Yes, and that's precisely the problem. Unlike almost every other RPG on the market, 5E hasn't bothered to implement a solid skill system, and as a result, you cannot play characters that are good at any skill (unless that skill happens to be weaponry or spellcasting).

Many players are moderately skilled at certain things in real life, and want to be able to play characters that are at least as good as they are (because, you know, it's heroic fantasy). That the system doesn't allow you to do that, is the reason why we frequently have threads like this, and why DMs commonly create houserules.

On the other hand, this saves WOTC on development cost, and those cost savings are also working exactly as designed.

This part however, ignores the entire structure of the skill system as it does exist.

5E hasn't bothered to implement a solid skill system: Our definitions of solid differ. It is highly usable and flexible in my opinion, one that I enjoy as both a player and a DM.

Unlike almost every other RPG on the market: I'm not able to respond to this, as my TTRPG experience is fairly limited, however a lot of people have disagreed upthread. There seem to be very few games with good skill systems, at least that have "universal" appeal.

you cannot play characters that are good at any skill: Within your very tightly constrained definition of "good", I acknowledge your point. I am at odds with that definition.

That my players and I and several other posters here have used the skill system successfully is proof that it CAN happen.

[Tehnar]

All the DM has to do is pick a static DC and let the players figure out their actions based on that. 25 feet is quite a lot to make in a jump, so the choices are probably hard (DC 15) or very hard (DC 20). If the DM determines the non-physical character has next to no chance of making the jump, then the players either need to make the decision to abandon that PC to their fate (and the guards might just beat the PC unconscious and throw them in the dungeon to be tortured, leaving the other characters to plan a rescue mission) or come up with a different escape plan.

If any of them have a grappling hook handy or even a rope (or if one is handy), the PC that's best at jumping can hand another PC the end of the rope and jump across. The pc that's bad at jumping can hang onto the end of the rope (once the rope is secured to the new building) and swing down into the side of the building (taking falling damage for 25 feet is better than falling from a height everyone is sure will kill the character)and the other PCs can pull him up. PCs that don't make the jump might be able to make a dex save to catch themselves on a ledge (or even the roof they're trying to jump to if they don't miss the jump DC by too much) or window on the way down.

Additionally, anytime a rules interpretation might immediately result in character death, it's not unreasonable to crack open a PHB and double check the rules or guidelines.

The only real issues with the situation described are that the DM isn't willing to let a character die as a consequence of making a fair ruling, has either decided there aren't or hasn't thought about ways a character might not die due to not making the jump, and wants to move on with the story or describe the guards shouting instead of making sure he gets this potentially pivotal and awesome escape scene set up fairly. Additionally, the characters haven't planned ahead or they might have seen the need for a possible rooftop escape (especially with the keep laid out in so much detail), in which case a potion/scroll of fly/levitate/feather fall (if the DM determines they are available) or some rope would have been a wise investment for the character bad at jumping.

Remember, even if the DM sets the DC at 15, a character rolling with a +10 bonus has a 20% chance of failure. DC 15 is hard.



Ehh... math says the STR 19 guy is jumping an extra 6 feet/30% further, so he should have a significantly lower DC than the guys who have to jump 15 feet/150% further than they normally could. I'd probably set the DC to 10+ 1/2 the number of extra feet to jump. A pole to vault with would double the effective jumping distance if you're proficient in Athletics.


As DM I resolved this scenario DC in about 3 seconds. I thought yep it's a pretty hard jump, DC 15. If it had been easy, DC 10, and very hard DC 20. The only complexity are the jumping rules themselves. Can a PC even jump 25'? I would have said the gap was smaller. But I don't have my PHB handy.


I guess I just can't get behind this thought process. If a normal person will have a hard time doing the task, its "hard". That DC is set by the rules. If the task is easy for a normal person, then the task is "easy". The DC is set by the rules. Again, for normal people. Characters are not normal, and thus the DCs aren't targeting them to enable the "heroic fantasy" feel. What is hard for a normal, is most likely a DC the character will easily achieve.

I fail to see where you believe the DCs are fluid. Regardless of the task, a locked wooden door will always be DC X. No matter what level the character is, the DC of locked wooden doors will be the same. Unless your argument is that DMs will have a different opinion of what hard is. Even then, your issue would take one single question to resolve before game begins.

"What do you qualify as an easy, hard, etc. task when making skill checks?" The answer should provide everything you need to grasp what you need.


Jumping, lifting, and other 'feats of strength' are the one place I would change the DC based on character...

After all, a 25 foot jump is an auto-success for some (Mike the Monk who can jump that far without a roll based on STR and class features); an easy task for others ( Chuck the Champion can jump 23 feet, he is rolling for the extra 2 feet only) or nearly impossible (Willy Wizard's rat familiar has an extra 22 feet to clear)


Even then, you really aren't changing the DC. If the jump is auto-success, no roll. +2 feet is easy, +22 feet nearly impossible. That isn't changing the DC as related to the difficulty for a normal person.

It's automatically successful to jump your STR determined distance. (No roll)
Adding 2 feet to your distance is relatively easy. (DC 5)
Adding 22 feet is exceptionally difficulty without assistance of some sort. (DC 25)

So again we have multiple different interpretations on what is the DC for a 25 feet jump. Something so simple, and yet something that will occur during all adventurers careers. Not only will different DMs handle the situation differently, which is problematic in its own, chances are the same DM will handle two occurrences of the same situation differently.



5E hasn't bothered to implement a solid skill system: Our definitions of solid differ. It is highly usable and flexible in my opinion, one that I enjoy as both a player and a DM.

Unlike almost every other RPG on the market: I'm not able to respond to this, as my TTRPG experience is fairly limited, however a lot of people have disagreed upthread. There seem to be very few games with good skill systems, at least that have "universal" appeal.

you cannot play characters that are good at any skill: Within your very tightly constrained definition of "good", I acknowledge your point. I am at odds with that definition.

That my players and I and several other posters here have used the skill system successfully is proof that it CAN happen.

Its easy to use the 5e skill system successfully because there is no system. There is no logical skill system in 5e, DMs have two options:

1) Make **** up. This basically devolves into players playing the DM instead of the game. The path to a successful character (that does things in game successfully) is to find out what your DM will accept and what he won't. Often depending on time of the day, personal situation and personally relationship on the relation DM - players. Actual character choices don't really matter. This is pure DM fiat mode.

2) DM goes into panic mode and to keep the game moving keeps using THE CHART:


d20 roll:
1 Critical failure
2-7 Normal failure
8-12 Argue with DM to see if success or not
13-19 Success
20 Critical success

This is pure luck mode. Again character choices don't really matter, everything depends on how well you roll the dice.

5e skill system play basically alternates between those two options. Which might give the illusion that there is a working system behind it all, but alas no. All it is is alternation between two very bad ways of running the game. Its actually the worst for DMs, as to keep the game interesting they have to do a lot of work. Improvisation is hard when you have nothing to improvise from.

I'm not saying games of 5e can't be fun, but you are hanging out with your friends. Its just that more fun can (could) be had with a semi decent system instead of what 5e presented.

[Naanomi]

Its strange, in real life I almost never know my exact odds of succeeding at a given task; nor if there are unknown factors working for or against my success. The success chart exists in a nebulous state that is inconsistent and often situation dependent. I also occassionally fail at tasks I perform regularly for no apparent reason, even tasks I'm heavily trained in.

Real life's skill system is awful, you can't have fun with it, and should be scrapped for something more functional

[LordVonDerp]

Sure.

To increase consistency between DMs (or between sessions of a single DM with less-than-perfect memory) it helps to have tables with standard DCs for standard tasks. For instance, climbing a tree is DC 10, a wall DC 20, an ice wall DC 30. Popular RPGs like GURPS, Pathfinder, and Whitewolf all have tables like that.

To give characters more reliability in the skills they're trained in, it helps to have a mechanic where character skill gives a greater spread than the luck of the dice. For instance, note that in 5E skill training gives about a +4 modifier, whereas the dice have a 20-point spread (this means that luck is WAY more important than skill); and note how in several popular RPGs these numbers are pretty much the opposite (i.e. that skill is more important than luck).

For the first, I haven't really seen any good reasons for not having such a table (it's easy to write, doesn't require a lot of space, and people who don't want it can ignore it).
For the second, I realize this is very much a matter of taste. Generally speaking, heroic games (e.g. Exalted, 3E) have mechanics that allow characters to reliably succeed, whereas horror or slapstick games (e.g. Call of Chthulhu, Paranoia) have mechanics that let characters frequently fail for reasons beyond their control. It's interesting that 5E markets itself as a heroic game, but has a skill mechanic more suitable for other genres.



"To give characters more reliability in the skills they're trained in, it helps to have a mechanic where character skill gives a greater spread than the luck of the dice."

How exactly does one do that? Or, more importantly, how do you do that without running into the problems of auto success and auto failure that we saw in 3e?
Where do you put the DCs? How Do you put them high enough to challenge trained characters without making them so high that no one else should even bother?

[Hawkstar]

For the second, I realize this is very much a matter of taste. Generally speaking, heroic games (e.g. Exalted, 3E) have mechanics that allow characters to reliably succeed, whereas horror or slapstick games (e.g. Call of Chthulhu, Paranoia) have mechanics that let characters frequently fail for reasons beyond their control. It's interesting that 5E markets itself as a heroic game, but has a skill mechanic more suitable for other genres.
Eh... I think you're misrepresenting it. It's not "Heroic = High Reliability in Success" and "Horror/slapstick = "High chance of failure". It's 'reliable" vs. "swingy".

D&D 5e has decided to go for a mathematical distribution closer to Savage Worlds (Which is not slapstick or Horror) than what it mutated into over the latter half of 3.5 and 4e (Where the systems opted to emphasize 'What resources do you expend to succeed?" over "Roll to see if you succeed!")

You put way too much emphasis on building characters to perform certain tasks, instead of taking characters of largely random abilities and having them try to overcome assorted tasks as they pop up.

Frankly, I think a system that operates on the assumptions that a character is built to reliably succeed on skill challenges is a waste of paper - if you're assumed to succeed, you don't need a resolution mechanic. If the 'resolution' mechanic gives a binary 'you can/can't do Task Y", everyone's reduced to their strength-shaped hammer looking to see all challenges ahead as a nail.

[Pex]

"To give characters more reliability in the skills they're trained in, it helps to have a mechanic where character skill gives a greater spread than the luck of the dice."

How exactly does one do that? Or, more importantly, how do you do that without running into the problems of auto success and auto failure that we saw in 3e?

That wasn't a problem. Rather, it's a matter of taste. I enjoyed eventually not being able to fail at task. I had the fun spending the time and game resources until I was able to autosucceed then got to enjoy the fruit of that labor. Autosuccess was the goal.

3E did work against the player a bit. Very few skill points + cross-class expense = Can't do much. Now that we have hindsight that math can be fixed. Increase the skill points and get rid of the expense. That's if you continue that system. Not everyone would want to do that, so what to do in the 5E system?


Where do you put the DCs? How Do you put them high enough to challenge trained characters without making them so high that no one else should even bother?

Give tables of examples. It shouldn't have had to be up to me. That was the game designers' job to create a rules system I could use. They decided to punt. They had the playtest. They got the feedback. They could have taken the opinions of all those players on how hard or easy some task should be and set a value for the DC. You can still have your Bounded Accuracy. What's missing are actual numbers. For each skill define some task for each DC level 5/10/15/20/25/30 so that DMs have something to compare to. For spell identification, it could easily just have been a flat DC 15 Intelligence (Arcane) check to identify a spell. You get better at it as your proficiency modifier increased. You could also add: +5 DC if you can't cast the spell level yet and +5 DC if the spell is not on your spell list including spells gained from class features. Maybe lower numbers. Maybe use Advantage/Disadvantage. Give the DM something so he can just run the game. Their emphasis on "make rulings not rules" is a hindrance.

[Kurald Galain]

Its strange, in real life I almost never know my exact odds of succeeding at a given task

Most people in real life are very much aware of what they are or are not capable of. If you ask someone who's into Parkour whether they can climb a certain wall, or ask an amateur lockpick artist whether he can open a lock, or ask a math student if he can solve a particular problem, then they can absolutely tell you that. And if they're actually skilled, they can, and without failing one time out of three. This is what it MEANS to be skilled at something.

So I'm sure all these people are 18th level rogues :smallbiggrin:

[Hawkstar]

Most people in real life are very much aware of what they are or are not capable of. If you ask someone who's into Parkour whether they can climb a certain wall, or ask an amateur lockpick artist whether he can open a lock, or ask a math student if he can solve a particular problem, then they can absolutely tell you that. And if they're actually skilled, they can, and without failing one time out of three. This is what it MEANS to be skilled at something.And when you put in the variables that lead to a skill roll, if they answer 'Yes', they're overestimating themselves.

Sure, an athlete can climb a wall - assuming it doesn't collapse out from under him, and he's not getting pelted by arrows or stabbed to death while trying to do so. Sure, a locksmith can open a lock... that he's worked with, or he has time for. And the math student can solve a particular problem... if he knows how to, and he can keep the numbers straight in his head.

You don't want a numeric/D20-based system. You want a diceless threshold system to manage skills.

[LordVonDerp]

That wasn't a problem. Rather, it's a matter of taste. I enjoyed eventually not being able to fail at task. I had the fun spending the time and game resources until I was able to autosucceed then got to enjoy the fruit of that labor. Autosuccess was the goal.


.

Really? Auto success was good?
Come on man, this is storytelling 101, if an obstacle doesn't represent a meaningful threat to the character then it doesn't add anything to the story and thus doesn't really have a point.

[LordVonDerp]

It seems like one of the biggest problems with this system is that the DCs all seem about 5 points too high.

[Fwiffo86]

Give tables of examples. It shouldn't have had to be up to me. That was the game designers' job to create a rules system I could use. They decided to punt. They had the playtest. They got the feedback.

This response assumes that the majority of responses coincide with your opinion and WotC ignored that. A more likely scenario is that your opinion is in the minority, or it was close enough between several options where WotC had to make a judgment call and went with the easier option that allows for the most players to use the system with little to no learning curve.

Claiming the system is wrong because you don't like how it works is simply silly.

[Naanomi]

And if they're actually skilled, they can, and without failing one time out of three. This is what it MEANS to be skilled at something.

So I'm sure all these people are 18th level rogues :smallbiggrin:
I'm a teacher, I'm well educated and been doing it for years; and yet sometimes a planned lesson (that I have run before successfully) just bombs in the classroom.

I hired a well recommended plumber to look at my hot tub drain, it still doesn't work. Didn't have the right part on hand (failed his roll I imagine) and there it sits still broken despite a 'skilled character' looking at it.

I've seen pro-athletes biff simple tricks, I've seen a low-dex no acrobatics bumpkin cousin fall off a roof and land on his feet taking no damage. Variability exists in performing skilled tasks, and in situations that call for it use passive skills to simulate when there is no variability chance at all.

[Pex]

Really? Auto success was good?
Come on man, this is storytelling 101, if an obstacle doesn't represent a meaningful threat to the character then it doesn't add anything to the story and thus doesn't really have a point.

Like I said, a matter of taste. For that one particular task I couldn't fail the fun was in achieving it. For me it was a case of never failing a defensive casting roll even on a Natural 1 to avoid an AoO. That is rather easy to do in 3E. It was important to me for my cleric to be in the thick of battle and never worry about whatever spell I want to cast or if an enemy was near me. I didn't always want to have to take a 5 ft step. In Pathfinder it's harder due to how they changed concentration checks, but I achieved it with my oracle and am delighted.

I even managed it once on being able to hit an enemy in 3E while playing a Master of Nine in Aura of Perfect Order stance to autoroll an 11 on one attack. For that one attack to know I couldn't fail to land a strike maneuver was thrilling. Getting a critical hit wasn't important to me for that character, neither was a full attack. I just wanted to land my strikes. It took a long while to get there in levels and real world play time, but when I got it it was awesome.

[Psikerlord]

Well, that's a clear example of the lack of guidelines. Right there, one DM says that easy = DC 10 and very hard = DC 20, whereas another says that easy = DC 5 and very hard = DC 25.

That basically proves the point Pex and others have been making.

Different DMs coming to different views about the precise DC is not a problem. All that matters is the ruling at your table. Once you play with the DM a bit, you'll get wise to his usual DC ranges. At that point you have all the info you need as a player. If you are rotating DMs at AL games or something, sure, things are less predictable, but still manageable.