Setting Skill DC, one person's perspective

[Sigreid]

So there's been a pretty constant stream of discussion on the forum about skills and debate about how they work so I thought I'd post how I handle skills in the hopes that it might help some tables with their game. Even if that help is just you deciding I'm bat crap crazy and it's a clear way not to do it.

Ok, to level set, I have to talk a little bit about attributes. The way I see it, your attributes aren't just raw natural talent, though that's in there too. Your attributes are you general life experience with a related group of activities as well as your talent. Basically, just like all of us, characters have a wide variety of experiences and know how to do, or can puzzle out how to do more things than we realize until it comes up.

Strength:
A person with high strength is more than a walking wall of muscle, though he's that too. Whether he understands what he is doing on an intellectual level or not he understands where and how to apply physical force, lifting techniques and leverage to make things happen. Strength benefits any skill or task where success primarily depends on the ability to apply physical force in the world

Dexterity:
A person with a high dexterity has developed exceptional control over both large and fine muscle movements. This can be developed through skills like wood carving, martial arts and dancing. Dexterity is in control whenever precise movements are required for sucess.

Constitution:
More than physical toughness, constitution is a measure of both physical conditioning and the stubborn will to just keep going. Constitution is the controlling attribute when everything in you says time to quit, but you power on.

Intelligence:
This is basically book learning. A person with high intelligence has learned a lot about history, physics, engineering, legends, etc. through either formal education or simply having a hungry mind and absorbing everything people have to teach him from the local farmer to the bards wandering through town. Intelligence covers any skill or task that requires remembering facts or working your way through a logic puzzle.

Wisdom:
A person with a high wisdom has developed an awareness and understanding of what is going on around him. Typically developed by watching people and events and trying to understand them it comes into play where cause and effect when all of the variables aren't obvious are the deciding factor. Wisdom helps resist mind affecting magic largely because a wiser character is more aware that they are being manipulated.

Charisma:
A persons ability to manipulate, inspire and ingratiate themselves to others. A person with high charisma practiced controlling his tone, posture and speech patterns. People who think they have a high charisma often think they can get away with things based on their winning smile and cheeky comments. People with a high charisma tend to adapt their mannerisms to their audience and keep an eye out for where other peoples lines are.

Added to the attributes is the proficiency bonus. This represents specialized training and experience in a limited number of applications within the skills controlled by the attributes.

Now that that is out of the way, here's how I set DCs. DCs only come into play if there is some kind of stressor. The source of stress can be a time constraint, a lack of resources, a threat of injury or anything else that would prevent someone from carefully taking as much time as they want. I'll also mention that DCs aren't universal. The survival check DC for a desert tribesman in the desert is significantly lower than the same check for someone who has lived their entire life in the jungle, for example.

DC 5: A task that could be easily performed by an average person of normal competency with very little chance of failure.

DC10: A person of average competency will succeed about half the time, even under stress.

DC 15: An average person is nearly always going to fail and has about a 25% chance of success when under stress.

DC 20: An average person under stress will only succeed through dumb luck.

DC 25: When under stress, only a person with extensive training in the related skill set or skill specialization has any chance of success. An average person will always fail.

DC 30: Even the best trained experts will fail nearly all the time. The few individuals that can pull these checks off with any regularity are people of legendary skill.

The key to looking at the DCs this way is to set the DC based on how difficult it would be for the average person to accomplish under duress. You have to set the DC relative to the world as a whole and not relative to the party.

Sorry this was a long post, but I don't think it works without understanding the reasoning behind it. I hope some of you find it helpful in deciding how you want to set DCs in your world.

[NewDM]

So there's been a pretty constant stream of discussion on the forum about skills and debate about how they work so I thought I'd post how I handle skills in the hopes that it might help some tables with their game. Even if that help is just you deciding I'm bat crap crazy and it's a clear way not to do it.

Ok, to level set, I have to talk a little bit about attributes. The way I see it, your attributes aren't just raw natural talent, though that's in there too. Your attributes are you general life experience with a related group of activities as well as your talent. Basically, just like all of us, characters have a wide variety of experiences and know how to do, or can puzzle out how to do more things than we realize until it comes up.

Strength:
A person with high strength is more than a walking wall of muscle, though he's that too. Whether he understands what he is doing on an intellectual level or not he understands where and how to apply physical force, lifting techniques and leverage to make things happen. Strength benefits any skill or task where success primarily depends on the ability to apply physical force in the world

Dexterity:
A person with a high dexterity has developed exceptional control over both large and fine muscle movements. This can be developed through skills like wood carving, martial arts and dancing. Dexterity is in control whenever precise movements are required for sucess.

Constitution:
More than physical toughness, constitution is a measure of both physical conditioning and the stubborn will to just keep going. Constitution is the controlling attribute when everything in you says time to quit, but you power on.

Intelligence:
This is basically book learning. A person with high intelligence has learned a lot about history, physics, engineering, legends, etc. through either formal education or simply having a hungry mind and absorbing everything people have to teach him from the local farmer to the bards wandering through town. Intelligence covers any skill or task that requires remembering facts or working your way through a logic puzzle.

Wisdom:
A person with a high wisdom has developed an awareness and understanding of what is going on around him. Typically developed by watching people and events and trying to understand them it comes into play where cause and effect when all of the variables aren't obvious are the deciding factor. Wisdom helps resist mind affecting magic largely because a wiser character is more aware that they are being manipulated.

Charisma:
A persons ability to manipulate, inspire and ingratiate themselves to others. A person with high charisma practiced controlling his tone, posture and speech patterns. People who think they have a high charisma often think they can get away with things based on their winning smile and cheeky comments. People with a high charisma tend to adapt their mannerisms to their audience and keep an eye out for where other peoples lines are.

Added to the attributes is the proficiency bonus. This represents specialized training and experience in a limited number of applications within the skills controlled by the attributes.

Now that that is out of the way, here's how I set DCs. DCs only come into play if there is some kind of stressor. The source of stress can be a time constraint, a lack of resources, a threat of injury or anything else that would prevent someone from carefully taking as much time as they want. I'll also mention that DCs aren't universal. The survival check DC for a desert tribesman in the desert is significantly lower than the same check for someone who has lived their entire life in the jungle, for example.

The bolded is a house rule we see often. According to Jeremy Crawford's tweets, the ability score modifier, proficiency, and advantage/disadvantage would account for a desert tribesman being better or worse at survival. Generally you would just give them disadvantage. Many people use this house rule though it seems to solve problems. Otherwise I agree with the rest of the above.

They either auto-succeed, auto-fail, or take a lot of time if there is not stressor.


DC 5: A task that could be easily performed by an average person of normal competency with very little chance of failure.

DC10: A person of average competency will succeed about half the time, even under stress.

DC 15: An average person is nearly always going to fail and has about a 25% chance of success when under stress.

DC 20: An average person under stress will only succeed through dumb luck.

DC 25: When under stress, only a person with extensive training in the related skill set or skill specialization has any chance of success. An average person will always fail.

DC 30: Even the best trained experts will fail nearly all the time. The few individuals that can pull these checks off with any regularity are people of legendary skill.

The key to looking at the DCs this way is to set the DC based on how difficult it would be for the average person to accomplish under duress. You have to set the DC relative to the world as a whole and not relative to the party.

Sorry this was a long post, but I don't think it works without understanding the reasoning behind it. I hope some of you find it helpful in deciding how you want to set DCs in your world.

The main problem with this is that most people don't know (or at least don't have the same idea) of what an 'average' person can do. So you end up with various DMs and players having different expectations of the difficulty of overcoming an obstacle. This leads to less fun for both parties as they drop out of 'role play' mode and enter 'discuss math and difficulty' mode.

For instance in this situation "You are being chased by the troll into a blind alley, before you is an uneven brick structure that looks like it was created by a drunk tinker gnome. bricks stick out at all angles and there are plenty of handholds."
Player "I climb up."

DM1: "Ok, I'd say an average person would find this easy to climb so its a DC 10 check."
DM2: "Ok, I'd say an average person would find this somewhat difficult to climb so its a DC 15 check."
DM3: "Ok, I'd say an average person would find this very difficult to climb so its a DC 20 check."

So your method is almost the standard method with that one house rule, but doesn't really solve the problems associated with setting DCs.

[jas61292]

The bolded is a house rule we see often. According to Jeremy Crawford's tweets, the ability score modifier, proficiency, and advantage/disadvantage would account for a desert tribesman being better or worse at survival. Generally you would just give them disadvantage. Many people use this house rule though it seems to solve problems. Otherwise I agree with the rest of the above.

While Crawford did say that DCs remain the same for the same task, and variance in modifiers accounts for skill, what he did not say is what constitutes a task. While obviously climbing a specific cliff under the same conditions will always be the same task, for other things, this might not be the case. I'm not going into examples, but even with the Crawford tweet on RAI, its still not completely clear. I'd say this mostly comes up if you use checks for knowledge related things (is recalling lore the same difficulty task for someone who just read a book on the topic as it is for the rest of the party?) and social things, though with the latter individual interactions arguably make it so two players will never even be trying the same task.

I do agree though that it is hard to judge what an "average person" can do, but ultimately, I don't think you can get too caught up on it. Come up with a standard, stick with it, and make sure your players understand the kind of difficulty you describe. The less time you worry about what the DC is, and the more time you spend playing out the results that come after the roll, the better time you will have.

[NewDM]

While Crawford did say that DCs remain the same for the same task, and variance in modifiers accounts for skill, what he did not say is what constitutes a task. While obviously climbing a specific cliff under the same conditions will always be the same task, for other things, this might not be the case. I'm not going into examples, but even with the Crawford tweet on RAI, its still not completely clear. I'd say this mostly comes up if you use checks for knowledge related things (is recalling lore the same difficulty task for someone who just read a book on the topic as it is for the rest of the party?) and social things, though with the latter individual interactions arguably make it so two players will never even be trying the same task.

Jeremy Crawford was pretty clear. In the above examples you would grant advantage to one and disadvantage to the other. Where this breaks down is when you end up with multiple sources of advantage/disadvantage, but that is a problem with the advantage system itself and not the skill system.


I do agree though that it is hard to judge what an "average person" can do, but ultimately, I don't think you can get too caught up on it. Come up with a standard, stick with it, and make sure your players understand the kind of difficulty you describe. The less time you worry about what the DC is, and the more time you spend playing out the results that come after the roll, the better time you will have.

The above works great if you have a regular group that you know pretty well and play with for entire campaigns.

Its not good for those of us that play pickup games, online games with complete strangers, or at conventions and events that require playing with complete strangers.

[Sigreid]

1. I thought I made it pretty clear at the output that this is my take on it.
2. I'll take NewDM's word for what Mr. Crawford says on the matter, I don't really follow the non-book rulings one way or the other. I set the DCs as appropriate to a member of the local culture because the local will know a lot more about what lets you survive in their native environment than someone who literally has never seen the animals, plants, and dangers before.
3. Doesn't really even matter what's in the books, when you play with a DM you've never played with before, you don't know what to expect.

[Fighting_Ferret]

Here's the catch... most people in the various d&d worlds would be average... thus the term...average. If 10 in an ability makes you average, and 8 is the theoretical low.... then there are as many people with 8's as there are 12's, 9's as 11's and straight 10's. PCs are exceptional. A commoner has an array of all 10's with no proficiency bonuses. Guidelines are that most tasks fall between DCs 10-20 ,and that DCs don't change based on character levels, but rather stay constant. Keep in mind that an average person (no bonuses, can only accomplish a DC 10 55% of the time). There is the ability to adjust DCs away from increments of 5, such as 12, or 17, just add 5% to the chance for every number above the closest 5, from the number lower than it.

Looking at the table provided, shows me that a level 1 character, with an above average stat of 14(+2 bonus) and proficiency (+2 bonus) has a +4 bonus total, which translates into being able to handle a a DC10 task 75% of the time, a DC 15 check 50% of the time, and a DC 20 check 20% of the time. Expertise is worth an additional +10% at this level. So the best anyone, using standard point buy or default ability spread could do at level 1, is the values under the +7 column. Which allows them a 25% chance on a very hard DC (25), at level 5, if they go for the ASI, they could reach the +9 column, where a non-expert could be at the +7 column (+3 proficiency, +4 ability mod).




+
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17


DC




















5
80
85
90
95
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100


10
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100


15
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
100
100
100


20
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90


25
0
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75


30
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50

[Sigreid]

Here's the catch... most people in the various d&d worlds would be average... thus the term...average. If 10 in an ability makes you average, and 8 is the theoretical low.... then there are as many people with 8's as there are 12's, 9's as 11's and straight 10's. PCs are exceptional. A commoner has an array of all 10's with no proficiency bonuses. Guidelines are that most tasks fall between DCs 10-20 ,and that DCs don't change based on character levels, but rather stay constant. Keep in mind that an average person (no bonuses, can only accomplish a DC 10 55% of the time). There is the ability to adjust DCs away from increments of 5, such as 12, or 17, just add 5% to the chance for every number above the closest 5, from the number lower than it.

Looking at the table provided, shows me that a level 1 character, with an above average stat of 14(+2 bonus) and proficiency (+2 bonus) has a +4 bonus total, which translates into being able to handle a a DC10 task 75% of the time, a DC 15 check 50% of the time, and a DC 20 check 20% of the time. Expertise is worth an additional +10% at this level. So the best anyone, using standard point buy or default ability spread could do at level 1, is the values under the +7 column. Which allows them a 25% chance on a very hard DC (25), at level 5, if they go for the ASI, they could reach the +9 column, where a non-expert could be at the +7 column (+3 proficiency, +4 ability mod).




+
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17


DC




















5
80
85
90
95
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100


10
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100


15
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
100
100
100


20
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90


25
0
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75


30
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50



That sounds to me a lot like what I was saying. And yes, someone with above average stat (extensive talent and experience) and proficiency (specific training and practice ) is much better at a given task than Joe Average npc.

[NewDM]

1. I thought I made it pretty clear at the output that this is my take on it.
2. I'll take NewDM's word for what Mr. Crawford says on the matter, I don't really follow the non-book rulings one way or the other. I set the DCs as appropriate to a member of the local culture because the local will know a lot more about what lets you survive in their native environment than someone who literally has never seen the animals, plants, and dangers before.
3. Doesn't really even matter what's in the books, when you play with a DM you've never played with before, you don't know what to expect.

Sure and its perfectly fine to house rule away on the skills and how DCs work. They don't work all that well unless you do for certain play styles.

Number 3: The baseline of the game is the rules. IF DMs are significantly deviating from those rules they stop playing 5e and are now playing a game loosely based on 5e. If they are just throwing a few alterations around, then its not really that hard to adjust. The main problem is the DCs for skill checks can be between 10-20 for the exact same situation between two different DMs and tables.

[Fighting_Ferret]

True, different DMs may set different DCs for the same task... the rulebook to cover everything that could conceivably have a skill check would be a BIG book.

Climbing, Swimming, and Crawling
While climbing or swimming, each foot o f movement
costs 1 extra foot (2 extra feet in difficult terrain), unless
a creature has a climbing or swimming speed. At the
DM’s option, climbing a slippery vertical surface or
one with few handholds requires a successful Strength
(Athletics) check. Similarly, gaining any distance in
rough water might


example... the group is climbing down a series of vines that lead into a sunken city that was lost centuries ago. The vines appear sturdy and seem to be rooted into the face of the cliff (DC 15), and the distance is 100 feet. The rogue goes first, as the best climber they will try first to make sure that the vines are really safe. The rogue has proficiency in Athletics, and gets hand-waved by the DM. The wizard, having a low Str score, and lacking proficiency in athletics, whispers an incantation and then steps of the cliff... gently floating to the ground bellow (feather fall). Up above sounds of pursuit are getting closer... and the first enemies are coming in to view... the cleric and fighter are still up top. The fighter tells the cleric to go and takes up a protective position as the cleric climbs down the vine. The cleric has a +2 Str and no proficiency in athletics. The DM asks them to roll a Athletics check... they roll a 12, plus their 2 from str, for a total of 14, 1 shy of the DC of 15. (This is the point where DMs differing greatly hurts)

Now we are at a crossroads... nothing in the book says how to handle such a close failure... we only know that failure is a failure. Does the DM:
1) Say a failure is a failure.. you fall 100 feet and take 10d6 HP damage from the fall.
2) Immediately call for a DC 15 Dexterity check to re-grab the vine (offering the cleric with a Dex of 14, a 40% chance to save them self)
a) If successful the slipped several feet down the vine and re-grabbed it...
b) If failed they lose hold of the vine and fall the 100 feet, taking 10d6 damage upon landing.
3) Say that they slipped and caught themselves (leaving out the Dex save) and they continue down.
4) Say that they slipped and caught themselves, and then require another climb check to continue down
a) Success - they get down safely
b) same as a, but every 10 feet they climb requires a successful climb check
c) Failure - repeat from step 1

Last to go is the fighter... who is pretty much covered under the cleric's chain above, but he may or may not be actively being attacked when he tries to climb.

Again we come to a crossroads... the fighter should be given disadvantage on his climb check as he is being actively engaged. He has a 16 Str (+3) and is proficient in Athletics, for a total of +5 or a 55% chance to climb that DC 15 vine successfully (dropped to a 45% chance due to disadvantage). He rolls a 16 and 10, passing the DC by the skin of his teeth, even through disadvantage. After avoiding his foe above and moving 15 feet down the vine, the goblins from above begin firing arrows at the fighter, who now has an AC of 16, while on the vine. How does our DM handle this...

1)Fighter made a successful climb check, he's good until he gets to the bottom.
3)Fighter made a successful climb check, if he takes damage, then he must make another climb check to keep climbing
3)Fighter made a successful climb check, he must make a climb check every round he climbs while being fired at to continue climbing.
4)Fighter made a successful climb check, he must make a Constitution save of 10+damage dealt to maintain his current climb.
a)Success he keeps climbing, repeating steps 1-4
b)Failure he basically goes to the list on the cleric example

Those are the differences in DMs

I'd rule that the cleric slips, and continues onward safely, as they aren't under any dire threat. If they failed that climb check by more then 5, they would have gotten the chance to catch themselves with a DC 25 Dex check. Failure by 10 or more would be the fall.
I'd rule that the fighter began his climb successfully, and if hit by a goblin arrow, would make a Con save to keep his grip on the vine. The roll for the Con save would determine what happens next, similar to the ruling of the cleric above.


I realize my example is tied to climbing... but I feel it is applicable to multiple skill checks.

[Pex]

The main problem with this is that most people don't know (or at least don't have the same idea) of what an 'average' person can do. So you end up with various DMs and players having different expectations of the difficulty of overcoming an obstacle. This leads to less fun for both parties as they drop out of 'role play' mode and enter 'discuss math and difficulty' mode.

For instance in this situation "You are being chased by the troll into a blind alley, before you is an uneven brick structure that looks like it was created by a drunk tinker gnome. bricks stick out at all angles and there are plenty of handholds."
Player "I climb up."

DM1: "Ok, I'd say an average person would find this easy to climb so its a DC 10 check."
DM2: "Ok, I'd say an average person would find this somewhat difficult to climb so its a DC 15 check."
DM3: "Ok, I'd say an average person would find this very difficult to climb so its a DC 20 check."

So your method is almost the standard method with that one house rule, but doesn't really solve the problems associated with setting DCs.

This. I don't know what my character can do. It entirely depends on who is the DM, so I have to "relearn" the game.


True, different DMs may set different DCs for the same task... the rulebook to cover everything that could conceivably have a skill check would be a BIG book.

Climbing, Swimming, and Crawling
While climbing or swimming, each foot o f movement
costs 1 extra foot (2 extra feet in difficult terrain), unless
a creature has a climbing or swimming speed. At the
DM’s option, climbing a slippery vertical surface or
one with few handholds requires a successful Strength
(Athletics) check. Similarly, gaining any distance in
rough water might



3E/Pathfinder just takes a few pages to go into Skill details for all skills with small tables giving specific DCs for benchmarks. AFB to give exact numbers, but the climbing skill is given specific DCs based on the thing to be climbed - has handholds, knotted rope, typical dungeon wall, natural rock-cliff, etc. If it's slippery, +5 DC.

[Sigreid]

Well, I gave a shot to maybe helping some people with skill difficulties. Sounds like it at least didn't help the people who responded. Ah well.

Few closing comments based on comments above:

1. NewDM, I'm afraid I don't buy that you're the final arbiter of what is and isn't legitimate 5e. :smalltongue:
2. Part of what it was all about was the impression I got from a few of the people on the forums that each character really only had 4 or so skills which I see as a bit ludicrous.
3. IMO when you're sizing up a task where you have reasonable information information the DM should give you a ballpark on your odds. "That cliff looks like a fairly easy climb." "The merchant is clearly keeping his eyes out for shop lifters. A fairly difficult mark, but you've pulled off worse." "That barmaid has clearly been hit on by far too many lewd patrons today. Good luck!" I don't think the DM should give you a number but a sense of the situation? Sure!

[Grod_The_Giant]

2. Part of what it was all about was the impression I got from a few of the people on the forums that each character really only had 4 or so skills which I see as a bit ludicrous.
I mean... it's generally true? Except that "skill" is worth about 50% of your bonus and "ability" is another 50% and even both of those added together are a small fraction of the d20 variance. So while yes, most characters are only trained in four skills, it doesn't matter tremendously if you're trained at all.


3. IMO when you're sizing up a task where you have reasonable information information the DM should give you a ballpark on your odds. "That cliff looks like a fairly easy climb." "The merchant is clearly keeping his eyes out for shop lifters. A fairly difficult mark, but you've pulled off worse." "That barmaid has clearly been hit on by far too many lewd patrons today. Good luck!" I don't think the DM should give you a number but a sense of the situation? Sure!
Agreed.

[Rysto]

3E/Pathfinder just takes a few pages to go into Skill details for all skills with small tables giving specific DCs for benchmarks. AFB to give exact numbers, but the climbing skill is given specific DCs based on the thing to be climbed - has handholds, knotted rope, typical dungeon wall, natural rock-cliff, etc. If it's slippery, +5 DC.

In practice, if they were playing 3E/Pathfinder won't DM1 wind up choosing an easy surface to climb, DM2 a medium surface and DM3 a hard one? I really don't see how this is any different in the end?

And if the DM didn't consider you climbing the wall, isn't this what happens?

Player: I want to climb the wall to escape? What's it look like?
DM: Uh.... *flips through book to convert desired DC to description*
DM: It's a slick surface with few visible handholds.
Player: *flips through book to convert description to DC*

I've never played 3E, but it just sounds convoluted to me.

[Sigreid]

I mean... it's generally true? Except that "skill" is worth about 50% of your bonus and "ability" is another 50% and even both of those added together are a small fraction of the d20 variance. So while yes, most characters are only trained in four skills, it doesn't matter tremendously if you're trained at all.
.

This is where my perspective goes a little rogue. People have lots of skills. Usually more than they realize they have. I see this as being the real definition of the attribute. Beyond that, people have a relatively few skills that they have put extra effort into being better at.

[mgshamster]

This is where my perspective goes a little rogue. People have lots of skills. Usually more than they realize they have. I see this as being the real definition of the attribute. Beyond that, people have a relatively few skills that they have put extra effort into being better at.

I really like this idea. Every PC is relatively competent and nearly all skills, but proficiency represents those who just go a little beyond.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I really like this idea. Every PC is relatively competent and nearly all skills, but proficiency represents those who just go a little beyond.
Now if only those numbers translated into probabilities properly you'd have something. (+5-15% is... not very much)

[mgshamster]

Now if only those numbers translated into probabilities properly you'd have something. (+5-15% is... not very much)

It helps if you think of it as a comparison to other PCs rather than everyone else in existence.

I relate it to my military experience, where all of us had a minimum level of competence at every task, but some people were a bit better at certain tasks, represented by the difference in ability score and proficiency.

I know it doesn't work perfectly, but it works for me. :)

[Grod_The_Giant]

It helps if you think of it as a comparison to other PCs rather than everyone else in existence.

I relate it to my military experience, where all of us had a minimum level of competence at every task, but some people were a bit better at certain tasks, represented by the difference in ability score and proficiency.

I know it doesn't work perfectly, but it works for me. :)
Oh, sure, but I don't care about relative values. If you crunch the numbers for various modifiers verses the specified Easy/Medium/Hard DCs it... doesn't look fantastic. Here's a link (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=20685794&postcount=81) to a post with tables I can't copy anymore; remember that each +1 is +5%. With the standard untrained +0 to +3, you have a quite low chance of succeeding at even a moderately difficult task-- heck, you'll mess up Easy checks with some regularity. The randomness of the die roll is such a big factor; the game feels exceedingly swingy to me-- except in combat, admittedly, but that's resolved by an order of magnitude more rolling than anything else, so it evens out.

The swinginess and the poorly-defined skills play into each other, I think. Because your bonus will almost never outstrip the DC-- rarely ever come close to it, in fact-- the arbitrarily-chosen difficulty has a huge effect on how likely you are to succeed. Which I suppose is kind of the point, but the lack of guidelines makes it more blatant somehow. I dunno. It's a feeling thing.

[Mjolnirbear]

So what... Can we not community-brew some guidelines? It won't help most tables but can help people around here.

Let's say Athletics.

Climb: no roll necessary, unless very smooth or slippery: DC 15, or 20 if there are virtually no handholds at all. Disadvantage if you are rushing, or are in combat.
Grappling or Shoving: contest. A wizard Grappling a big ogre may have disadvantage.

Animal Handling: no roll needed. If the mount is afraid or panicked, you are moving at high speed, or some other factor affects your control, you must roll to control a mount, but a combat-trained mount does not panick due to combat.
DC 10: direct the mount. Train a domesticated animal.
DC 15: calm a mount. Train an exotic animal.
DC 20: stop a mount that is subject to a fear effect from moving
Staying mounted under stress requires a DC 10 check. If the mount is galloping, add 5 to the DC. If the mount is panicking, add 5 to the DC.

Acrobatics.
Escape a grapple or shove: contest
Balancing assumes hands are free or a pole is used to aid Balancing. Otherwise, add 5 to the DC. Add 5 to the DC in stormy or windy weather. Impose disadvantage if the person balancing is in a rush, under stress, or in combat.
DC 5: Balancing on a beam.
DC 10: perform a flip or cartwheel.
DC 15: Balancing ôn a rope or wire.
DC 20: performing a flip or cartwheel while Balancing.

Arcana
DC 5: identify famous magical creatures (dragon, Kraken, tarrasque) and basic magical knowledge: the Weave, magic components, resting to gain spells.
DC 10: read Arcane runes
DC 15: activate or deactivate magic triggers, traps or dormant magic
DC 15: identify most magical creatures.
DC 20: identify a rare magical creature (aboleth, magmin, intellect devourer)

History
You may get advantage on your roll if your race or class is relevant: I. E a dwarf identifying a Delzoun artifact.
DC 5: famous historical events, such as the time of troubles. You can act like someone of your economic or societal class.
DC 10: basic history. Identify famous noble houses and heraldry. Identify famous items. Passable mannerisms of a class or social strata you do not belong to, if not under scrutiny.
DC 15: understanding most class or caste systems in your world. Good mannerisms of a class or social strata you do not belong to, even under scrutiny.
DC 20: identify an obscure noble house, obscure piece of history, or an item that is obscure.

Religion
Identify celestials, fiends, or undead. See scale with Arcana. Famous: succubus, skeleton, ghost. Rare: huecva, demilich, yochlol.
DC 5: identify basic religious knowledge, like a prayer for the dead
DC 10: read religious symbols.
DC 15: (de)activate magic triggers, traps or dormant magic

Nature
Identify Fey, Elementals, monsters typically thought of as animals or plants. Famous: unicorn, Titania, owlbear, hag. Rare: blight, treant
DC 5: identify plant or animal
DC 10: harvest part of a plant or animal
DC 15: harvest part of a plant or animal where care or caution is needed (skin, poison, venom, glands)

Stealth:
Cannot hide while being seen. An enemy gets disadvantage to see you in dim light or darkness, obscurity, or to hear you in loud surroundings. You get disadvantage in bright light or extreme quiet. Hiding is a contest.


Just to provide a basis for beginning a dialogue

[Pex]

Well, I gave a shot to maybe helping some people with skill difficulties. Sounds like it at least didn't help the people who responded. Ah well.

Few closing comments based on comments above:

1. NewDM, I'm afraid I don't buy that you're the final arbiter of what is and isn't legitimate 5e. :smalltongue:
2. Part of what it was all about was the impression I got from a few of the people on the forums that each character really only had 4 or so skills which I see as a bit ludicrous.
3. IMO when you're sizing up a task where you have reasonable information information the DM should give you a ballpark on your odds. "That cliff looks like a fairly easy climb." "The merchant is clearly keeping his eyes out for shop lifters. A fairly difficult mark, but you've pulled off worse." "That barmaid has clearly been hit on by far too many lewd patrons today. Good luck!" I don't think the DM should give you a number but a sense of the situation? Sure!

What you proposed isn't much different than the rules, just condensed into one posting, if convenient. The rules do tell us what DC to assign based on the difficulty of the task. What they don't tell us is what is easy or what is hard, leaving it up to the DM. For some people that's a hip hip hooray wonderful feature. I'm not one of those people. I want consistency. The inherent differences of opinion between two DMs means given the same scenario my ability to do the task will be different. It is quite possible to have consistency within one campaign. That's great, but when I then play in a different game, everything I know about how easy or hard it is do something goes out the window, and I have to start over learning how things work which I don't want to do.


In practice, if they were playing 3E/Pathfinder won't DM1 wind up choosing an easy surface to climb, DM2 a medium surface and DM3 a hard one? I really don't see how this is any different in the end?

And if the DM didn't consider you climbing the wall, isn't this what happens?

Player: I want to climb the wall to escape? What's it look like?
DM: Uh.... *flips through book to convert desired DC to description*
DM: It's a slick surface with few visible handholds.
Player: *flips through book to convert description to DC*

I've never played 3E, but it just sounds convoluted to me.

In Pathfinder, a very rough natural rock surface has a climb DC of 15. It doesn't matter who is DM. If one DM doesn't use the word "slippery" while a second does, then the DC for the second DM's wall is 20. That's still consistency despite the different DCs because a third DM's very rough natural rock surface wall will have a DC of 15 or 20 if he says it's slippery.

As for looking up the table during game play, that is a matter of taste. Some people will have or learn system mastery such that they know the DCs by heart and need never look it up. For other people, accepting that the rules are heavy and liking it aren't going to mind looking up the rule. That's why the rule book is on the gaming table in the first place, to look up something so that players don't have to memorize every minutiae of detail. Same thing with a DM preparing an adventure. When deciding an encounter takes place where a very rough natural rock surface exists, he doesn't have to look up the rule and jot down the climb DC. If no one is going to climb it it won't matter. If someone will the DC can be determined then. For some reason, just for flavor, he may spontaneously decide to have it rain even though that wasn't the original intention. Someone wants to climb it, DC increases by 5.

Back to the player's perspective. If my climb modifier is +15, I know I can always climb a very rough natural rock surface or anything easier. My character is just that good. If it's slippery it's not automatic, but I know I have a very good chance of it to be worth the risk. If I don't have to go far up to reach a ledge (i.e. only need one roll) then I can go for it with complete confidence. Failure just means I didn't get a good grip, not fall splat, and can try again. What happens in 5E? My athletics modifier is +7. What's the DC? Is it easy? Is it medium? Is it hard? If it rains, does that increase the difficulty for a higher DC or does that mean roll with disadvantage? That's going to depend on who is the DM, and I can not know I'm just that good to autosucceed even if it wasn't raining.

[Shaofoo]

What you proposed isn't much different than the rules, just condensed into one posting, if convenient. The rules do tell us what DC to assign based on the difficulty of the task. What they don't tell us is what is easy or what is hard, leaving it up to the DM. For some people that's a hip hip hooray wonderful feature. I'm not one of those people. I want consistency. The inherent differences of opinion between two DMs means given the same scenario my ability to do the task will be different. It is quite possible to have consistency within one campaign. That's great, but when I then play in a different game, everything I know about how easy or hard it is do something goes out the window, and I have to start over learning how things work which I don't want to do.

The DMG does give out rules to set up the DC of skills, it is basically between 10 and 20 depending on difficulty. There are guidelines that does explain how to set up a DC and even avid too easy and too hard. The worst you can do is a DC 20 with disadvantage. If you learn the worst case scenario then anything else should be easier.

I do think that 5e just isn't for you if you want consistency between DMs, unless you play in a group. You are complaining about a feature of the game constantly.

[JoeJ]

Religion
Identify celestials, fiends, or undead. See scale with Arcana. Famous: succubus, skeleton, ghost. Rare: huecva, demilich, yochlol.
DC 5: identify basic religious knowledge, like a prayer for the dead
DC 10: read religious symbols.
DC 15: (de)activate magic triggers, traps or dormant magic

Religion for identifying undead made no sense to me in 3e, and it still makes no sense. If you want ghost stories and folklore about vampires, religious studies is not the field where you'll find much of it.

[Telok]

Gnomes get a skill ability that I don't think is explained or expanded on anywhere.

Artificer’s Lore: Whenever you make an Intelligence (History) check related to magic items, alchemical objects, or technological devices, you can add twice your proficiency bonus, instead of any proficiency bonus you normally apply.
Which is nice but the Intelligence (History) doesn't mention anything like that. As far as I can tell nothing anywhere references it or the stuff it relates to.

So there's this sort of dangling PC ability without explanation or information. I had a new DM try to run a module, there was a NPC with a magic item and I wanted to use the Intelligence (History) check. We ended up checking three books (PH, DMG, and the adventure) before realizing that there were no History checks for magic items. The guy was using a module because he was newer to DMing and didn't feel comfortable winging everything. He ended up having to rule on that, stealth, an arcana check about a spell, and the jumping question by the end of the first session.

[NewDM]

Well, I gave a shot to maybe helping some people with skill difficulties. Sounds like it at least didn't help the people who responded. Ah well.

Few closing comments based on comments above:

1. NewDM, I'm afraid I don't buy that you're the final arbiter of what is and isn't legitimate 5e. :smalltongue:

lol, that came out of nowhere. I was simply stating that other than your houserule you were describing exactly what was in the rules. Your houserule is a houserule because Jeremy Crawford the guy that is the rules master over at Wizard's of the Coast who writes the Sage Advice (rules questions) column/blog said so. That's about as official as you can get without direct errata to the books.

I personally just read the rules and relay that information to people through these forums. I point out house rules so that new DMs and players don't confuse it with the actual rules.


2. Part of what it was all about was the impression I got from a few of the people on the forums that each character really only had 4 or so skills which I see as a bit ludicrous.
3. IMO when you're sizing up a task where you have reasonable information information the DM should give you a ballpark on your odds. "That cliff looks like a fairly easy climb." "The merchant is clearly keeping his eyes out for shop lifters. A fairly difficult mark, but you've pulled off worse." "That barmaid has clearly been hit on by far too many lewd patrons today. Good luck!" I don't think the DM should give you a number but a sense of the situation? Sure!

Well 2 came about because the modifier for everyone but Rogues and Bards was much less than the dice can add and you end up with situations where the burly muscular barbarian loses an arm wrestling match to the weak old wizard.

I agree with 3, but it isn't a rule so a lot of DMs just don't do it.

In my view The different parts of interacting with the skill system represent different things:
Ability Bonus - Raw ability plus all the minor things you learn that don't quite add up to a full skill.
Proficiency Bonus - Direct training, memorization, experience of how to do a skill related task.
DC - The outside environmental factors that make up the challenge (Ability Bonus and Proficiency are internal to the character)
Dice Roll - All the little things that interfere with doing a task that is not directly related to the environment that make up the challenge (such as a loose stone a tiny bit of slickness at exactly the wrong spot, that annoying gnat that buzzes in your ear while you try to concentrate, etc...etc...)

So in my view you should be rolling a d10 or even a d8 and lower the DCs by 5.


Gnomes get a skill ability that I don't think is explained or expanded on anywhere.

Which is nice but the Intelligence (History) doesn't mention anything like that. As far as I can tell nothing anywhere references it or the stuff it relates to.

So there's this sort of dangling PC ability without explanation or information. I had a new DM try to run a module, there was a NPC with a magic item and I wanted to use the Intelligence (History) check. We ended up checking three books (PH, DMG, and the adventure) before realizing that there were no History checks for magic items. The guy was using a module because he was newer to DMing and didn't feel comfortable winging everything. He ended up having to rule on that, stealth, an arcana check about a spell, and the jumping question by the end of the first session.

I think you are supposed to be able to tell from a history check what the history of the item is.

"Oh, this symbol on the pommel of a dragon curled around an orb is the sign that these blades were forged from dragon heated mithral and forged in the Sphere Tower. They generate a flame if you attune yourself to the blade, but strangely the flame just happens sometimes, I don't know why."

[Mjolnirbear]

Religion for identifying undead made no sense to me in 3e, and it still makes no sense. If you want ghost stories and folklore about vampires, religious studies is not the field where you'll find much of it.

It makes sense to me but i honestly don't know why. Maybe because it is animate with energy from the Negative Plane? Because in previous editions to be a true necromancer you needed cleric magic? Or maybe just because it deals with the afterlife, of sorts, which is pretty religious.

I like the division because of several reasons:
If you used Arcana to identify everything, everyone would choose Arcana; religion would never get chosen
If you used Nature, based on it being unnatural, well that also covers pretty much everything and nature becomes the Über skill

Spreading it out just seems like better sense to me . but this is why it should be a community project. Not everyone will like it but we can hash it out and later vote on aspects we can't agree on.

[mgshamster]

Religion for identifying undead made no sense to me in 3e, and it still makes no sense. If you want ghost stories and folklore about vampires, religious studies is not the field where you'll find much of it.

I have this image of the classic Christian solider/monk fighting vampires. Vampires hate the cross, after all. But now I don't know if that type of imagery came before D&D - I don't know enough about Bram Stroker's Dracula or Nasfuratu to remember if they hated crosses, but it's now set in culture that the most faithful do best against vampires.

However, priests did deal with evil spirits, especially in the form of vanquishing them, much like they do in exorcisms.

More importantly, however, is what was the popular culture of the 50s-70s as far as priests vs any sort of undead? Look to the books and movies of the time to get the answer. I believe during that time there were a bunch of horror flicks that had priests vanquishing ghosts and poltergeists out of houses, in addition to fighting vampires. I've seen a lot of those old movies, but because I didn't live through that era, I don't remember which ones were from what decade.

I suspect it was a combination of the above which caused the Cleric to get an association with fighting undead - at least the most classic of the undead: the vampires, the ghosts, and the poltergeists. From there, it was just a matter of extending that same power to other types of undead, such as zombies and wights and such.

Also note that the original "turn undead" ability from 1st edition also included demons and Devils (to represent exorcisms). Somewhere along the way the D&D cleric lost their touch against Devils and demons, but kept it with the undead.

So here we are today in 5e, where the cleric has knowledge about the undead and specific skills to fight them. What else to clerics have? Lots of knowledge on religion. Therefore, knowledge of religion becomes associated with knowledge of the undead, for the purposes of fighting them through faith.

[JoeJ]

I like the division because of several reasons:
If you used Arcana to identify everything, everyone would choose Arcana; religion would never get chosen
If you used Nature, based on it being unnatural, well that also covers pretty much everything and nature becomes the Über skill

Spreading it out just seems like better sense to me . but this is why it should be a community project. Not everyone will like it but we can hash it out and later vote on aspects we can't agree on.

I wouldn't divide by creature type at all. Rather, any of the lore skills can be applied to any creature, but the type of information you recall would be different. So knowing what kind of environment wild horses prefer would be Nature, details of horse sacrifice would be Religion, the role of horses in warfare during the 3rd Dynasty would be History, which parts of a horse are used in a Potion of Speed would be Arcana, what to feed your horse would be Animal Handling, etc.

[Telok]

I think you are supposed to be able to tell from a history check what the history of the item is.

"Oh, this symbol on the pommel of a dragon curled around an orb is the sign that these blades were forged from dragon heated mithral and forged in the Sphere Tower. They generate a flame if you attune yourself to the blade, but strangely the flame just happens sometimes, I don't know why."

That's a nice thought, of course you automatically learn all the mechanical stuff after a short rest anyways. Mind you it means that there's this ability in the Player's Handbook that does absolutely nothing unless the DM specifically goes out and tries to make it useful. Of course that seems to be the model for several of the skills in general anyways.

[JoeJ]

That's a nice thought, of course you automatically learn all the mechanical stuff after a short rest anyways. Mind you it means that there's this ability in the Player's Handbook that does absolutely nothing unless the DM specifically goes out and tries to make it useful. Of course that seems to be the model for several of the skills in general anyways.

Not just skills but other abilities too. For example, every class has some kind of combat ability that's completely useless unless the DM specifically goes out and creates a bunch of encounters with hostile monsters.

[Vogonjeltz]

In Pathfinder, a very rough natural rock surface has a climb DC of 15. It doesn't matter who is DM. If one DM doesn't use the word "slippery" while a second does, then the DC for the second DM's wall is 20. That's still consistency despite the different DCs because a third DM's very rough natural rock surface wall will have a DC of 15 or 20 if he says it's slippery.

I don't see how any of this even matters. The DM determines both the world that exists and what that world means. It's irrelevent if one DM would treat slippery as disadvantage on a Medium task and another would treat it as a Hard task, because they simply choose what to set it as behind the scenes. If the DM intends it to be that level of DC, then the question of say "Just how slippery is that rock?" becomes moot. It's as treacherous a climb as the DM thinks it is, not the PC.

There simply doesn't need to be consistency between different DMs, under no circumstances outside a module are we going to get the exact same game happening across different DMs with the same players, it's just not going to happen. And the Modules have set DCs, so if there were players who played the same Module under different DMs the actual DC of particular tasks are going to be identical.

[Sigreid]

lol, that came out of nowhere. I was simply stating that other than your houserule you were describing exactly what was in the rules. Your houserule is a houserule because Jeremy Crawford the guy that is the rules master over at Wizard's of the Coast who writes the Sage Advice (rules questions) column/blog said so. That's about as official as you can get without direct errata to the books.
"

Didn't come out of nowhere, you ended your comment by claiming that if you changed the rules too much you were no longer playing 5E but a game based on 5E. As for the second part there, sure, but that doesn't mean I have to care what his call of the week is. I play pretty close to the rules in the books, but yes, modified and interpreted to suit my group. Frankly, I don't even really care what is released as errata or a later printing of the books that I have.

It's fine if you see things differently, I can tell you're not one of my gaming group. :smalltongue:

[Sigreid]

It makes sense to me but i honestly don't know why. Maybe because it is animate with energy from the Negative Plane? Because in previous editions to be a true necromancer you needed cleric magic? Or maybe just because it deals with the afterlife, of sorts, which is pretty religious.

I like the division because of several reasons:
If you used Arcana to identify everything, everyone would choose Arcana; religion would never get chosen
If you used Nature, based on it being unnatural, well that also covers pretty much everything and nature becomes the Über skill

Spreading it out just seems like better sense to me . but this is why it should be a community project. Not everyone will like it but we can hash it out and later vote on aspects we can't agree on.

I would guess because since the very beginning of D&D clerics have had very specific and special powers for dealing with undead.

[Pex]

I don't see how any of this even matters. The DM determines both the world that exists and what that world means. It's irrelevent if one DM would treat slippery as disadvantage on a Medium task and another would treat it as a Hard task, because they simply choose what to set it as behind the scenes. If the DM intends it to be that level of DC, then the question of say "Just how slippery is that rock?" becomes moot. It's as treacherous a climb as the DM thinks it is, not the PC.

There simply doesn't need to be consistency between different DMs, under no circumstances outside a module are we going to get the exact same game happening across different DMs with the same players, it's just not going to happen. And the Modules have set DCs, so if there were players who played the same Module under different DMs the actual DC of particular tasks are going to be identical.

There is a need because that's my preference. I like the ability to know what my character can do based on the rules and not the whim of the DM. The DM can be Honest True Fair Balanced All For Fun, but I still want to know. That's all this is, a different taste. 5E chose this direction. I don't have to like it. I can choose just to lump it because it's not a problem enough to me to hate the system, unlike say 4E which I have never played and refuse to play. I already freely admit I prefer Pathfinder and play it with my regular group. I'm able to have fun with my 5E group despite it all. Interestingly enough, I'm considering DMing my own 5E game. Might start in June if the logistics work out.

However, I'm not going to keep quiet of my opinion on the matter when asked and appropriate for the thread just because some people don't agree with me. (Not accusing you, Vogonjeltz, of anything.) That hasn't stopped people (repeatedly) criticizing 3E/Pathfinder in the 3E Forum, and I see no reason why 5E should be treated any differently.

[NewDM]

Not just skills but other abilities too. For example, every class has some kind of combat ability that's completely useless unless the DM specifically goes out and creates a bunch of encounters with hostile monsters.

Yeah, that's such a corner case though. I mean who puts monsters in their adventures anymore? I mostly just put ethically challenged non-humans in compromising positions that go overboard in their quest for power. :smallamused:

But seriously there are abilities and skills in the game that don't see use or are worthless such as the above mentioned skill or the identify spell. I guess if you want to know what an item is without resting you can waste a spell slot or try to make a check. Of course you could just wait for a short rest to see.


I don't see how any of this even matters. The DM determines both the world that exists and what that world means. It's irrelevent if one DM would treat slippery as disadvantage on a Medium task and another would treat it as a Hard task, because they simply choose what to set it as behind the scenes. If the DM intends it to be that level of DC, then the question of say "Just how slippery is that rock?" becomes moot. It's as treacherous a climb as the DM thinks it is, not the PC.

There simply doesn't need to be consistency between different DMs, under no circumstances outside a module are we going to get the exact same game happening across different DMs with the same players, it's just not going to happen. And the Modules have set DCs, so if there were players who played the same Module under different DMs the actual DC of particular tasks are going to be identical.

Actually, unless you can do probability math in your head, you'll get different outcomes if you put disadvantage on one DC or use a higher DC. This is the kind of stuff they don't tell you about that most DMs should at least be aware of.

I enjoy consistency. That's a play style choice as someone else pointed out. I enjoy the idea that my character can make educated guesses as to how difficult something is and then determine a course of action based on that, or at least know if he's good at it or not.


Didn't come out of nowhere, you ended your comment by claiming that if you changed the rules too much you were no longer playing 5E but a game based on 5E. As for the second part there, sure, but that doesn't mean I have to care what his call of the week is. I play pretty close to the rules in the books, but yes, modified and interpreted to suit my group. Frankly, I don't even really care what is released as errata or a later printing of the books that I have.

It's fine if you see things differently, I can tell you're not one of my gaming group. :smalltongue:

If you change the rules too much, you are in fact playing another game. I did not claim the OP was doing that. I was just stating it as a fact.

Rules, errata, and Sage Advice (Jeremy Crawford) all lead to consistent games from table to table. Don't be surprised if you play in another game and find yourself having to relearn the rules because they have been updated. That aside play however you want. Its your own game.

Believe it or not I play very well at any table. I only walk away from games where the DM tries to mess with their players. "Your sword suddenly turns into a python and wraps itself around you and starts to squeeze the life out of you." or "The simulacrum misinterprets your order and Wishes to become real. It becomes real and begins casting offensive spells at you."

[mgshamster]

I guess if you want to know what an item is without resting you can waste a spell slot or try to make a check. Of course you could just wait for a short rest to see.

Unless you decide not to use that rule. You can take away the short rest component of identification and require players to use the identify spell. Heck, you could even require them to just figure it out by experimenting with it; don't even allow the identify spell! That always makes things interesting.

[JoeJ]

Yeah, that's such a corner case though. I mean who puts monsters in their adventures anymore? I mostly just put ethically challenged non-humans in compromising positions that go overboard in their quest for power. :smallamused:

A good DM either creates adventures appropriate to the PCs or (for a sandbox game) creates a world where the PCs can find appropriate adventures. How often a particular proficiency, or other character ability, gets used is determined by the players and the DM, not the rules.


But seriously there are abilities and skills in the game that don't see use or are worthless such as the above mentioned skill or the identify spell. I guess if you want to know what an item is without resting you can waste a spell slot or try to make a check. Of course you could just wait for a short rest to see.

Identify on a magic item is mostly useful if you use the Variant rules. Artificer's Lore remains useful regardless, since neither resting or Identify tell you the history of the item, only its magical properties.

[Markoff Chainey]

In my opinion, if you do even WANT to do number-crunching about what a "normal" (= non-player) person can do in D&D, you would be better off with a different system and should look into a more simulation oriented game. It is very obvious that D&D is all but that.

The game skill system is just totally off from any "real world" experience and when you try to apply the game rules into reality, the system inevitably breaks. It does work because we are generally ignorant (not in a bad sense) enough so that it does not matter. (The same holds true for the combat system...)

Look at what any sports expert does on TV.. they undergo "high DC tasks" daily and almost never fail. If the D&D system was "real" any freeclimber would be dead within a week because they would regularly fail even easy checks. In our world, when you are "proficient" the results are much more invariable and a daring person in the real world could never even hope to achieve whats possible within the game.

And that is good as it is because otherwise it would be a very boring game!

A game needs to be a simulation only to the point that people can create their mental theatre and relate to it. - And be as easy and accessible as possible at the same time.

As an example, imagine the point-buy-27 weakest elf wizard with str 8 and the muscle bloated half orc paladin-bully (str 17) in a contest of strength. The wizard will still win in 30% of times! Back in my schooldays the strongest in class never lost an arm wrestle against the weakest and (you might have guessed) we were all mediocre humans, expressed in D&D: all with the same STR bonus.

[JoeJ]

As an example, imagine the point-buy-27 weakest elf wizard with str 8 and the muscle bloated half orc paladin-bully (str 17) in a contest of strength. The wizard will still win in 30% of times!

That's only if you as DM decide to base the outcome on a single roll.

[Vogonjeltz]

There is a need because that's my preference. I like the ability to know what my character can do based on the rules and not the whim of the DM. The DM can be Honest True Fair Balanced All For Fun, but I still want to know. That's all this is, a different taste. 5E chose this direction. I don't have to like it. I can choose just to lump it because it's not a problem enough to me to hate the system, unlike say 4E which I have never played and refuse to play. I already freely admit I prefer Pathfinder and play it with my regular group. I'm able to have fun with my 5E group despite it all. Interestingly enough, I'm considering DMing my own 5E game. Might start in June if the logistics work out.

However, I'm not going to keep quiet of my opinion on the matter when asked and appropriate for the thread just because some people don't agree with me. (Not accusing you, Vogonjeltz, of anything.) That hasn't stopped people (repeatedly) criticizing 3E/Pathfinder in the 3E Forum, and I see no reason why 5E should be treated any differently.

Yes, but what I'm saying is that even in 3.5 the DM has absolute control over the DCs. If they want it to be 20, it's 20. That doesn't prevent them from describing the situation however they want.

[NewDM]

Yes, but what I'm saying is that even in 3.5 the DM has absolute control over the DCs. If they want it to be 20, it's 20. That doesn't prevent them from describing the situation however they want.

If they aren't house ruling in 3.x then yes, they do describe those features such as 'lots of hand holds' and 'slick' that would give a very good idea of what the DC is, if not an exact DC. If they are setting the DC different than the tables in the books, they were house ruling.

[mgshamster]

If they aren't house ruling in 3.x then yes, they do describe those features such as 'lots of hand holds' and 'slick' that would give a very good idea of what the DC is, if not an exact DC. If they are setting the DC different than the tables in the books, they were house ruling.

In another thread you claimed that 3.X specifically had Rule 0 written down - that it's an actual rule in the book. So if the GM decides not to use that table, they're not house ruling, they're just following a different rule published in the book.

[Pex]

Yes, but what I'm saying is that even in 3.5 the DM has absolute control over the DCs. If they want it to be 20, it's 20. That doesn't prevent them from describing the situation however they want.

What a DM says goes. If he says enough stupid stuff the Players go too.

Upon playing a game I reasonably expect the rules to be followed. A few house rules that tweak the game are one thing. If there are so many house rules that tweak everything it's not the same game. In fact, I have to "relearn" the game by learning all those house rules. If a 3E DM does everything on a whim then we're playing the ultimate "DM May I". That's on him. 3E has rules for skills. I'm not being unreasonable wanting to use them. 5E skills are specifically about DM's whim. That's not something I care for.

[Telok]

Identify on a magic item is mostly useful if you use the Variant rules. Artificer's Lore remains useful regardless, since neither resting or Identify tell you the history of the item, only its magical properties.

Actually it's only useful if you use a variant rule and don't have an Identify spell and the DM makes up meaningful history for the items. How many published adventures have history checks for magic items?

I'd almost be willing to put up with the organized play crap just to troll the DMs who run the modules with that ability. Almost.


That's only if you as DM decide to base the outcome on a single roll. Well that's almost all the skill rolls anyways. 5e gets a lot of praise for being a simple and fast system where skills are one roll and done.

[JoeJ]

Actually it's only useful if you use a variant rule and don't have an Identify spell and the DM makes up meaningful history for the items. How many published adventures have history checks for magic items?

Short rest, whether normal or variant, and Identify are irrelevant since they simply don't do what Artificer's Lore does. And of course, any lore skill is only relevant in a world that has lore to recall. As to how many published adventures have magic items with important histories, I have no idea.


Well that's almost all the skill rolls anyways. 5e gets a lot of praise for being a simple and fast system where skills are one roll and done.

Again, that's a DM decision. There's nothing in the rules that says an arm wrestling match, for example, should be decided by one die roll, neither more nor less.

[Telok]

And of course, any lore skill is only relevant in a world that has lore to recall. As to how many published adventures have magic items with important histories, I have no idea.

I've asked a couple of questions on the Q&A thread about printed uses of skills and such that have never been answered. I highly suspect that's because there are no printed examples of some of the skills or skill uses. So I'm pretty sure that if there are any then it's going to be one to three in a single adventure.

In about three or four weeks I'll have time to borrow a DMG and four or five major adventures so I can go through them for info. I'm interested in seeing how WotC uses skills in the published adventures anyways, because the PH, SRD, and beginner sets are all really sparse on skill info.

[Shaofoo]

What a DM says goes. If he says enough stupid stuff the Players go too.

Upon playing a game I reasonably expect the rules to be followed. A few house rules that tweak the game are one thing. If there are so many house rules that tweak everything it's not the same game. In fact, I have to "relearn" the game by learning all those house rules. If a 3E DM does everything on a whim then we're playing the ultimate "DM May I". That's on him. 3E has rules for skills. I'm not being unreasonable wanting to use them. 5E skills are specifically about DM's whim. That's not something I care for.

I really don't get your logic, on the one hand you hate house rules and consider anything that is not in the text to be house rules but at the same time you deride the skills that need DM intervention to use them. The system requires "house rules" (which I would call it DM ruling which is not the same as houserules) but you hate such "house rules".

It seems that 5e is just hopelessly broken in your eyes. I can't see how you can ever work with it if the main point of how the system works you hate it. Heck you could transfer the 3e tables you love so much and only need to tweak some things (probably reducing all DC by 5 for starters) but that would break your "no houserule" rule. I sincerely wonder how can you ever enjoy 5e.

Also it isn't DM's whim, there are rules for skills as well. If the DM ignores those rules that is on him.

[NewDM]

In another thread you claimed that 3.X specifically had Rule 0 written down - that it's an actual rule in the book. So if the GM decides not to use that table, they're not house ruling, they're just following a different rule published in the book.

Rule 0 is what allows for House Rules to be used in the first place. They are in fact house ruling. "House Rule" is a much shorter phrase than "Using rule 0 to alter this particular rule.".

If Rule 0 didn't exist, then there wouldn't be house rules.

[DanyBallon]

Rule 0 is what allows for House Rules to be used in the first place. They are in fact house ruling. "House Rule" is a much shorter phrase than "Using rule 0 to alter this particular rule.".

If Rule 0 didn't exist, then there wouldn't be house rules.

I don't get why there's needs to be a rule for everything. By their very nature, TTRPG, are meant to be played differently from group to group because they involved human beings in the role of "referee". The rule book are guidelines that the DM will apply as he interpret them. Usually, the DM and the players will talk before hand of how they see the game so they may not be too much surprises along the way. I understand that in "official" play where it's not always the same players playing together, it may be harder to have this talks before starting the game.

Computer RPG on the other hand are easier to follow the same set of rules and having consistent ruling as it is a computer software with hardcoded rules that acts as referee. (Notes that CRPG based on TTRPG are often, if not always, using an custom set of rules that tries to emulate the intent of the TTRPG they're based on)

Lastly the only rules that truly matters when playing any game (a rule that is more than often not even written), is to have fun.

So arguing because one use the rules differently that you are (I'm using the pronoun "you" in its larger form, I'm not pointing anyone in particular here :smallsmile:) is kinda pointless because the game is meant to be adapt for whats fun for your group, and if that goal is achieved then you're playing it right even if it's not the exact same way someone else is.

[NewDM]

I don't get why there's needs to be a rule for everything. By their very nature, TTRPG, are meant to be played differently from group to group because they involved human beings in the role of "referee". The rule book are guidelines that the DM will apply as he interpret them. Usually, the DM and the players will talk before hand of how they see the game so they may not be too much surprises along the way. I understand that in "official" play where it's not always the same players playing together, it may be harder to have this talks before starting the game.

Its strange. We (not you) have this same conversation in nearly every thread that this topic is brought up. The answer is that more rules brings less difference of expectations. So adding a table of DCs for skill checks means that both the DM and the player coming to the table for the first time already know what 'plenty of hand holds' and 'slick' means in mechanical game terms. They don't have to discuss it in detail every time it comes up. It levels the playing field so that DMs don't make bad decisions or TPK players. That way the DM can focus on their actual job, which is to adjudicate things not covered by the rules and create an interesting plot and world for the players to be in.


Computer RPG on the other hand are easier to follow the same set of rules and having consistent ruling as it is a computer software with hardcoded rules that acts as referee. (Notes that CRPG based on TTRPG are often, if not always, using an custom set of rules that tries to emulate the intent of the TTRPG they're based on)

Lastly the only rules that truly matters when playing any game (a rule that is more than often not even written), is to have fun.

So arguing because one use the rules differently that you are (I'm using the pronoun "you" in its larger form, I'm not pointing anyone in particular here :smallsmile:) is kinda pointless because the game is meant to be adapt for whats fun for your group, and if that goal is achieved then you're playing it right even if it's not the exact same way someone else is.

comparing TTRPGs to computers is a false comparison. The two are nothing alike. (though some come close like Dark Souls 3).

For some playing by the rules is fun. They like to use the rules to come up with clever ways to accomplish goals. This is the 'fun as an obstacle course' (http://angrydm.com/2014/01/gaming-for-fun-part-1-eight-kinds-of-fun/) that is listed in the study linked in by the AngryDM.

Others have fun by 'exploring' the DMs world and house rules. There is no wrong way to have fun, however each edition of D&D is geared toward a specific type of fun. 5E is not geared toward "Fun as an obstacle course" in anything but combat and even there its kind of a 'lite' version of that fun type.

[R.Shackleford]

I might start setting DC based on how dramatic the situation is.

Not Dramatic: 5

Dramatic: 10

Very Dramatic: 15

OMG: 20

[Pex]

I really don't get your logic, on the one hand you hate house rules and consider anything that is not in the text to be house rules but at the same time you deride the skills that need DM intervention to use them. The system requires "house rules" (which I would call it DM ruling which is not the same as houserules) but you hate such "house rules".

It seems that 5e is just hopelessly broken in your eyes. I can't see how you can ever work with it if the main point of how the system works you hate it. Heck you could transfer the 3e tables you love so much and only need to tweak some things (probably reducing all DC by 5 for starters) but that would break your "no houserule" rule. I sincerely wonder how can you ever enjoy 5e.

Also it isn't DM's whim, there are rules for skills as well. If the DM ignores those rules that is on him.

I don't hate house rules. A tweak here and there is fine. There are house rules with my Pathfinder group. Magical healing outside of combat is automaxed. I had to get used to that one. Also, with players and DM sick and tired of barbarians dying all the time when dropped while raging, it was decided the extra hit points gained from raging due to Con increase were temporary hit points and thus not lost upon dropping as the rage ends. Then Pathfinder Unchained came out doing the exact same thing so we switched to that book's version of the class. Another one is in creating magic items. You must have the spell prerequisite available. No increasing spellcraft check DC by 5 without it. Also, the caster level published in the book is the caster level you must at least be to create it. I'm not a fan of that part because it effectively bans crafting rods (they're all level 17), but I lump it.
However, if a DM needs to create a house rule for almost everything that goes too far. That's why I would never play E6 since it fundamentally changes the game. I would never play in Z-Man's 5E game (no offense intended Z-Man) because he changes way too much for my taste.

The problem I have with 5E skills is that the official rule is the DM makes everything up by fiat which will be different than what another DM will do by fiat given the same scenario. It's not a house rule. The lack of consistency from game to game is that thing that bothers me. My character, eventually accepting at some level above 1, can never be just that good to autosucceed because there's no defined DC. What one DM might say I don't need to roll another DM would say I do need to roll and a third DM would say I need to roll but against a different DC.

[DanyBallon]

Rules heavy system do not prevent rules interpretation disparencies. It just means that there are more rules available that are subject to different interpretation.
As long as you have humans acting as referee, you are bound to have different rulings of a same situation. Some will apply rules as written, others will consider the intent, some others care only if it is fun (neither of these style are exclusive).
CRPG is the only time you'll see RAW be followed consistently, and only because it's a computer software being the referee.

[Shaofoo]

The problem I have with 5E skills is that the official rule is the DM makes everything up by fiat which will be different than what another DM will do by fiat given the same scenario. It's not a house rule. The lack of consistency from game to game is that thing that bothers me. My character, eventually accepting at some level above 1, can never be just that good to autosucceed because there's no defined DC. What one DM might say I don't need to roll another DM would say I do need to roll and a third DM would say I need to roll but against a different DC.

There are defined DCs in the rules. While the number might change between DM to DM the number itself should be between 10 and 20 inclusive. The book says that 5, 25 and 30 should be barely used if at all (DC 30 even going out of their way to show you the math).

And I still don't see how is this a 5e only problem. All other editions have similar deals of DCs changing depending on the DM because usually the world is different but even if there were two DMs that run a module I would still expect not everything to be equal to the book and some things might change from the published material or even between each other.

Of course I always ask the DM how hard things might seem but some people have a problem with that.

[JoeJ]

I might start setting DC based on how dramatic the situation is.

Not Dramatic: 5

Dramatic: 10

Very Dramatic: 15

OMG: 20

I like this idea. I may adopt something like to too.

[R.Shackleford]

I like this idea. I may adopt something like to too.

I would do something similar with athletics and acrobatics for PC v Enemy.

Essentially have the player roll against those D's instead of having it be a contest. Speeds up things I think.

So when you are on your 5th goblin the DC would be 5 or 10, but if the miniboss hobgoblin comes out his DC would be 10 or 15. If the party turns the tide in a battle and starts to overwhelm the enemy then their DC is reduced by 5 or so since it isn't as dramatic.

[Zalabim]

The answer is that more rules brings less difference of expectations. So adding a table of DCs for skill checks means that both the DM and the player coming to the table for the first time already know what 'plenty of hand holds' and 'slick' means in mechanical game terms. They don't have to discuss it in detail every time it comes up.

This


It levels the playing field so that DMs don't make bad decisions or TPK players.

has no effect on this. The first creates a consistent thematic experience across many tables. The second is accomplished by informing the DM as to what is an appropriate challenge, so the DM can create a predictable mechanical result at the table. Adding detailed examples of DCs linked to specific kinds of situations still leaves the requirement of informing the DM of what is an appropriate situation. They aren't incompatible, just unrelated.

[NewDM]

This



has no effect on this. The first creates a consistent thematic experience across many tables. The second is accomplished by informing the DM as to what is an appropriate challenge, so the DM can create a predictable mechanical result at the table. Adding detailed examples of DCs linked to specific kinds of situations still leaves the requirement of informing the DM of what is an appropriate situation. They aren't incompatible, just unrelated.

It can. If all the DCs in the tables are between a certain range the DM knows anything outside that range is inappropriate. Ideally it would be combined with the already existing information to guide the DM. All together it actually does let the DM know not to set an impossible DC that will get characters killed.

[LordVonDerp]

If they aren't house ruling in 3.x then yes, they do describe those features such as 'lots of hand holds' and 'slick' that would give a very good idea of what the DC is, if not an exact DC. If they are setting the DC different than the tables in the books, they were house ruling.

That assumes that both you and the DM have that table memorized.

[NewDM]

That assumes that both you and the DM have that table memorized.

No. If the DM deviates from the tables whether they have them memorized or not, they are house ruling.

[LordVonDerp]

No. If the DM deviates from the tables whether they have them memorized or not, they are house ruling.
Unless they have the table.memorized they won't describe the wall in the exact manner in the table, houseruling or otherwise.

[Sigreid]

From my perspective while a pc should have a pretty good idea of the difficulty of a task, I think it takes some of the fun out if I always know what the actual DC is. Takes some of the thrill out of it.

[NewDM]

From my perspective while a pc should have a pretty good idea of the difficulty of a task, I think it takes some of the fun out if I always know what the actual DC is. Takes some of the thrill out of it.

Well if they can see the challenge and they know their capabilities, it breaks my suspension of disbelief and verisimilitude when they don't know how hard it is (easy, moderate, hard). If they can't see the challenge, then that is another matter. Jumping a chasm in the dark that you can't see the other side should be a risky proposition for instance.