Standard Ability Check Numbers

[Easy_Lee]

5e is fairly lacking in standardized DCs for actions. Climbing a rope can range from trivial to a DC 15 athletics check depending on the DM and his perception of how "hard" something is to do. I've been on the receiving end of a few bad ones, such as the aforementioned DC 15 climb a rope check a level 1 rogue of mine was subjected to.

We really need a set of standardized DCs for specific actions. One example, which we know from the PHB, is that breaking manacles or a chain is a DC 20 check. This means a level one fighter could do it, given a few tries.

I found a thread (https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/2k3uio/5e_difficulty_class_examples_for_each_skill_any/) discussing these, and it included an amended version of the Typical Difficulty Classes list found in the PHB. This list was based on the fact that bards can make checks as high as 65 under optimal conditions (https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/2gfgys/5e_difficulty_classes_difficult_for_who_exactly/).

Amended Ability Check Cheat Sheet

Trivial (DC 0) A task that is so easy that isn't worth a check. An adventurer can almost always succeed automatically.
Very Easy (DC 5) Requires a minimum level of competence or a bit of luck to accomplish.
Easy (DC 10) Requires a minimum level of competence or a bit of luck to accomplish.
Moderate (DC 15) Requires a bit more competence to accomplish. Can be completed more often than not by a character with both natural aptitude and specialized training.
Hard (DC 20) Include anything beyond the capabilities of the average person without aid or exceptional talent. Even with a bit of training and skill you still need some luck to pull it off (or maybe some specialized training). Note: chains seem to fit this definition, based on a 10 strength commoner being able to break one on a good day.
Very Hard (DC 25) Achievable only by especially talented individuals. Nobody else should even bother trying.
Formidable (DC 30) Achievable only by the most trained, experienced, and talented individuals, and they probably still need help to pull it off.
Nearly Impossible (DC 35) An epic feat on which legendary tales are based on. The named masters of a skill come from acts such as these.
Godly (DC 40) Can't be done without assistance unless you're basically a demigod.

Notice that no one is ever going to hit Godly without some magical or class-feature assistance, and Nearly Impossible requires high levels and expertise to reach.

Edit: just to be clear, I don't like the above. Players like can hit these numbers, but they must use specific class features and roof-raisers to do so. It feels very 3.5e.

Published Specific Ability DCs

The following DCs are from the PHB:

Alchemist's Fire - Extinguish the flame with a DC10 Dexterity Check (no skill, it seems)
Chains / Manacles - DC 20 Strength check (no skill, again) to break, DC20 dexterity check (come on, not sleight of hand?) to escape manacles, or pick the lock on manacles with DC 15 Dex
Stabilize a creature - DC 10 Medicine check
Free yourself from a hunting trap - DC 13 Strength check (dammit, WotC, why no skill!?)
Typical Lock - DC 15 Dexterity check. You gotta be messing with me, PHB, since this one's obviously Thieves' tools.
Rope - Burst with a DC 17 Strength check
Jumping:

DC 10 Acrobatics check to land on your feet in difficult terrain
DC 10 Athletics check to clear a low obstacle (no taller than a quarter of the jump's distance) while making a long jump.


Avoiding Checks
As a DM, you don't need everything to have a fixed check. Rather than setting the DC to escape a rope, after being tied up, just have the person who ties them up roll Survival to tie the rope. Set that as the DC to escape.

Similarly, environmental hazards can be given "skills" and bonuses to those skills, turning every skill check into a contest against nature. A storm at sea might have +11 Athletics Skill, which it will use to contest anyone who tries to swim against it. A mountain may have a cliff face with +5 Athletics / Acrobatics contest to climb it. That way, players can say they beat the storm, or vanquished the mountain. Just a thought, though make sure to only roll once and use that as the check for everyone at the table.

Does anyone have further information on this? Additional published Ability Checks which I missed and should include under published specific ability DCS?

[Kryx]

Escaping is a Dex check. It isn't Acrobatics (balance, stunts, avoid prone, tumble) or Sleight of hand (legerdemain or manual trickery). Escaping was it's own skill in the older editions. Now it is rolled into just normal Dexterity.
Similarly breaking things is a strength check though - that's correct. The book not using Thieves' tools is a mistake though.

Those non-skill DCs should likely vary from skill DCs - they did in Pathfinder and old editions. The problem is in 5e those kind of straight ability checks don't have modified DCs. I don't have a good solution besides everything being a skill/tool, but then you need more skills/tools or to give proficiency in "generic" dexterity that doesn't include acrobatics.

The same kind of issues exist for generic Constitution checks to resist hot weather for example.

DCs depend on if a DM uses things that "raise the roof". Options like Expertise, Pass Without a Trace. Without those few options I think most DCs are acceptable.

Regarding trying multiple times: That is possible under any system. You have to set consequences for failure otherwise PCs can just try it until they succeed.

[Socratov]

Escaping is a Dex check. It isn't Acrobatics (balance, stunts, avoid prone, tumble) or Sleight of hand (legerdemain or manual trickery). Escaping was it's own skill in the older editions. Now it is rolled into just normal Dexterity.
Similarly breaking things is a strength check though - that's correct. The book not using Thieves' tools is a mistake though.

Those non-skill DCs should likely vary from skill DCs - they did in Pathfinder and old editions. The problem is in 5e those kind of straight ability checks don't have modified DCs. I don't have a good solution besides everything being a skill/tool, but then you need more skills/tools or to give proficiency in "generic" dexterity that doesn't include acrobatics.

The same kind of issues exist for generic Constitution checks to resist hot weather for example.

DCs depend on if a DM uses things that "raise the roof". Options like Expertise, Pass Without a Trace. Without those few options I think most DCs are acceptable.

Regarding trying multiple times: That is possible under any system. You have to set consequences for failure otherwise PCs can just try it until they succeed.

well, with a nat 20, [stat] 20, +6 proficiency, expertise, guidance and Bardic Inspiration, you can hit a top of 20+5+12+4+12=53. In the case of a barbarian 20 on Athletics he can even go as far as 55. if he max values everything. for averages: that becomes 10.5+5+12+2.5+6.5=35.5 (37.5 on athletics for a primal champion barb)So having an absolute master of the skill be inspired and boosted he can attain legendary status. he can also do it without those boosters if he rolls an 18 or higher (15% chance without advantage, for primal barb on athletics that is on a 16 and up at a 25% chance, not counting advantage).

So I don't think it unreasonable to use the afore mentioned criteria for the lower (that is below 20 DC's), but up them a bit for the higher praises. dc 35 for solo is legendary, but if you pool your resources you can truly once in a while defeat the (g)odds.

[Kryx]

well, with a nat 20, [stat] 20, +6 proficiency, expertise, guidance and Bardic Inspiration, you can hit a top of 20+5+12+4+12=53.
I think you made a typo on the stat and meant 5, not 20. I bolded the controversial topic. Expertise, as argued by many (Easy_Lee himself) over the last few weeks, should simply be advantage, not expertise for exactly this "raise the roof" issue.

Taking a normal situation at level 15 or higher with advantage on expertise you have 2d20kh1 + 5 + 6 + guidance (d4) + inspiration (d12 at max) = 14-47. average of 33.82. anydice (http://anydice.com/program/8ad8).

Without guidance and Bardic Inspiration it is 12-31 with an average of 24.82. anydice (http://anydice.com/program/8ada)

Those situations seem good to me. Bardic Inspiration is potentially too much of a "roof raiser" though.

[Socratov]

I think you made a typo on the stat and meant 5, not 20. I bolded the controversial topic. Expertise, as argued by many (Easy_Lee himself) over the last few weeks, should simply be advantage, not expertise for exactly this "raise the roof" issue.
no, that was on purpose to signify a stat taken to it's roof of a score of 20. In the calculation it makes for a mod of 5.

Taking a normal situation at level 15 or higher with advantage on expertise you have 2d20kh1 + 5 + 6 + guidance (d4) + inspiration (d12 at max) = 14-47. average of 33.82. anydice (http://anydice.com/program/8ad8).

Without guidance and Bardic Inspiration it is 12-31 with an average of 24.82. anydice (http://anydice.com/program/8ada)

Those situations seem good to me. Bardic Inspiration is potentially too much of a "roof raiser" though.

and luckily it's limited to a d12 at cha.mod per short rest (after lvl 5), plus, the bard cannot use it on himself.

[Kryx]

and luckily it's limited to a d12 at cha.mod per short rest (after lvl 5), plus, the bard cannot use it on himself.
d12 is still a ridiculous roof raiser. The current progression matches the normal proficiency bonus pretty well so you're basically adding 3x proficiency with the system laid out.

I'd be inclined to drop it to a d6 or d4, double the uses, and have them recharge on a short rest. Though I'd have to think through if that's the best way to handle it.

Math-wise a d4 is basically 12.5% more likelihood of success, d6 17.5%, a d8 22.5%, a d10 27.5%, and a d12 32.5%.
Adding 32.5% on top of an already 60-65% success rate makes it pretty much auto succeed. That's not very fun.

[Socratov]

d12 is still a ridiculous roof raiser. The current progression matches the normal proficiency bonus pretty well so you're basically adding 3x proficiency with the system laid out.

I'd be inclined to drop it to a d6 or d4, double the uses, and have them recharge on a short rest. Though I'd have to think through if that's the best way to handle it.

Math-wise a d4 is basically 12.5% more likelihood of success, d6 17.5%, a d8 22.5%, a d10 27.5%, and a d12 32.5%.
Adding 32.5% on top of an already 60-65% success rate makes it pretty much auto succeed. That's not very fun.

nah, I like it, you can't use it continually, it lasts only 10 min/until used and is actually one of the only things that a bard can do except for spells. for a valor bard it also applies to an ally's AC or damage, and for a lore bard it's also as a detraction for an enemy. it's basically a mimicry of the Battlemaster's feature, but always on someone else. (beware of dual bards parties)

[Kryx]

nah, I like it
If you like it's effect on the game then don't adjust DCs to account for it.

Either you like the game having auto-successes and you leave it as is. Or you don't like auto-successes and you make adjustments.

But if your solution is to make adjustments to DCs you then just screwed every PC who doesn't have expertise or access to bardic inspiration.

[Socratov]

If you like it's effect on the game then don't adjust DCs to account for it.

Either you like the game having auto-successes and you leave it as is. Or you don't like auto-successes and you make adjustments.

But if your solution is to make adjustments to DCs you then just screwed every PC who doesn't have expertise or access to bardic inspiration.

Well, I liked OP's description of the DC's, I just don't think that 40 is the threshold for godlike (solo it might be, but for teamwork it isn't). and I think that the Bard's ability to sinpire people to hell and back is the key to the Bard to begin with.

the only other way to make it any kind of cool is to change it to inspire competence (add competence), inspire expertise (make it an expertise skill) and inspire luck (treat check as if rolled max die), handed out at lvl 1, 6, 12 and at each andout you get cha.mod uses so for a cha of 20 (to keep it easy) 5 uses at lvl 1, respectively 10 and 5 uses at lvl 6, and respectively 15, 10 and 5 uses at lvl 12. and then some stuff about using it for attacks, meddling with crits, and that they reset on long rests. then the lore bard can reduce the enemie's roll in the same way (basically minus the competency/expertise bonus or minimum value of die)

[Easy_Lee]

I agree with Kryx that roof raisers shouldn't exist. I posted the above from another thread as a "realistic" game case, for the kinds of numbers players will actually find ways to hit.

My preference would be that no one can hit higher skill check numbers than prof + mod + 20. I think rogues and bards, being skill monkeys, ought to just be better at hitting those numbers.

Kryx, I gotcha on generic dexterity and strength checks. I suppose that's fair, and it does add some needed benefit to the Champion archetype.

[Saeviomage]

Escaping is a Dex check. It isn't Acrobatics (balance, stunts, avoid prone, tumble) or Sleight of hand (legerdemain or manual trickery). Escaping was it's own skill in the older editions. Now it is rolled into just normal Dexterity.
Similarly breaking things is a strength check though - that's correct. The book not using Thieves' tools is a mistake though.

Those non-skill DCs should likely vary from skill DCs - they did in Pathfinder and old editions. The problem is in 5e those kind of straight ability checks don't have modified DCs. I don't have a good solution besides everything being a skill/tool, but then you need more skills/tools or to give proficiency in "generic" dexterity that doesn't include acrobatics.


Read the rules on ability checks again. Technically there are no non-proficiency checks: the rules say that the DM picks an ability and calls for a check. He may choose a proficiency that applies. Otherwise a player can ask if proficiency in a particular skill applies.

So in the above example, escaping is a dex check: but a player might successfully describe his actions as to make use of a proficiency.

[Kryx]

Read the rules on ability checks again. Technically there are no non-proficiency checks: the rules say that the DM picks an ability and calls for a check. He may choose a proficiency that applies. Otherwise a player can ask if proficiency in a particular skill applies.
Perhaps you should re-read it

Sometimes, the DM might ask for an ability check using a specific skill-for example, "Make a Wisdom (Perception) check." At other times, a player might ask the DM if proficiency in a particular skill applies to a check. In either case, proficiency in a skill means an individual can add his or her proficiency bonus to ability checks that involve that skill. Without proficiency in the skill, the individual makes a normal ability check.

Also see "Other _____ Checks" which list many situations where a generic check would happen without a skill.



So in the above example, escaping is a dex check: but a player might successfully describe his actions as to make use of a proficiency.
A player can ask, and a DM should say that acrobatics won't help because acrobatics does not cover that action. Sleight of Hand is really the only applicable option. I'd be fine allowing Sleight of Hand to escape restraints that bind the hand.

But that's a rare care. For example breaking down a door, pushing a statue over, etc have no skill associated.

[Saeviomage]

Perhaps you should re-read it

Yup. It says "even if the DM says it's a strength check, you might be able to add a proficiency to it, so ask".


Also see "Other _____ Checks" which list many situations where a generic check would happen without a skill.

Other dexterity checks is almost entirely things which directly have skills to perform them. The only two that don't have obvious related proficiencies are escaping bonds and tying up prisoners.


A player can ask, and a DM should say that acrobatics won't help because acrobatics does not cover that action. Sleight of Hand is really the only applicable option. I'd be fine allowing Sleight of Hand to escape restraints that bind the hand.

I would be fine allowing acrobatics to cover overall body contortionism, given that no other skill does.


But that's a rare case. For example breaking down a door, pushing a statue over, etc have no skill associated.
Proficiency in appropriate tools springs to mind, but it really comes down to the descriptions involved.

[lperkins2]

Caltrops are a DC 15 Dex save or take 1 pt of damage, lose remaining movement, and have speed cut in half until that point is healed.

[Prophes0r]

...Climbing a rope can range from trivial to a DC 15 athletics check depending on the DM and his perception of how "hard" something is to do. I've been on the receiving end of a few bad ones, such as the aforementioned DC 15 climb a rope check a level 1 rogue of mine was subjected to...

The reason it varies is because "climbing a rope" can have various meanings.

Is the character climbing a thick rope with knots every foot while wearing nothing but cloths and boots? I'd call that a DC 5.

Is the character trying to do the same thing but wearing a backpack, or carrying a staff/bow? That's a DC 10.

Is the character trying to climb a regular rope with no knots while wearing nothing but cloths and boots? That is easily a DC 15.

The same thing with a backpack or staff/bow? Maybe a DC 20.

People vastly underestimate how hard it is to do stuff like that. There is even a name for it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
and the related
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overconfidence_effect

I'm not saying it would be impossible to climb this rope. Far from it. Especially for "adventurers". But assuming it is easy just because you THINK it is easy is folly.

[Vogonjeltz]

5e is fairly lacking in standardized DCs for actions. Climbing a rope can range from trivial to a DC 15 athletics check depending on the DM and his perception of how "hard" something is to do. I've been on the receiving end of a few bad ones, such as the aforementioned DC 15 climb a rope check a level 1 rogue of mine was subjected to.

climbing doesn't require a check at all absent difficult conditions, it just requires additional movement.

If we were talking a slippery vertical surface, or one with few handholds, then maybe a Strength (Athletics) check.

A rope is clearly neither of those extreme scenarios, so the DM used bad judgment in calling for you to roll there.

As for thieves tools, PHB 154 indicates that proficiency with them applies to any ability checks made to disarm traps or open locks, so the book doesn't need to bother on that.

[Mr.Moron]

But that's a rare care. For example breaking down a door, pushing a statue over, etc have no skill associated.

Is this explicitly called out somewhere? These all sound like Athletics checks to me.

EDIT: Re-read athletics. For some reason it explicitly calls out it's only for jumping or climbing, rather than a catch all for sportsmanship type things. Seems really odd to me but I guess that's the RAW. Seems like Athletics really should cover weightlifting, arm wrestling and marathon running, but whatever. I mean it already covers wrestling for pete's sake!

[Kryx]

Is this explicitly called out somewhere? These all sound like Athletics checks to me.

EDIT: Re-read athletics. For some reason it explicitly calls out it's only for jumping or climbing, rather than a catch all for sportsmanship type things. Seems really odd to me but I guess that's the RAW. Seems like Athletics really should cover weightlifting, arm wrestling and marathon running, but whatever. I mean it already covers wrestling for pete's sake!
Indeed, as you've discovered those things I called out are specifically not part of athletics.

Many people treat Athletics as the default strength check and Acrobatics as the default Dexterity check, but that's not RAW.

Curse of Strahd uses Strength to break down doors. 3, 3.5, and PF all did the same.

[Mr.Moron]

Indeed, as you've discovered those things I called out are specifically not part of athletics.

Many people treat Athletics as the default strength check and Acrobatics as the default Dexterity check, but that's not RAW.

Curse of Strahd uses Strength to break down doors. 3, 3.5, and PF all did the same.

It's just so bizzarely in consistent!

Want to grab hold of a 200lb rock and push it to the ground: Strength Check!
Want to grab hold of a 200lb man actively trying to resist you and push him to the ground? Athletics Check!

If the man is untrained in Athletics grabbing and pushing a rock of the same mass is easier. It's goofy.

In 3.5, 3 there was no catch-all athletics skill and no skills that could sensibly be constructed include such things. When you only have "Swim" and "Jump" and grappling and shoving people using their own rules, good design or bad design it's at least internally consistent to have no skill check apply to busting down doors and pushing over statues. In 5e though "Athletics" already covers pushing things over and moving them in the combat rules and the general concept of "Athletics" broadly includes those.

It's like designer A was working on the skill list, grouped together the 3.5 skills into athletics and said "That should about do it". Then designer B came in looked at the skill list without reading it and said "Athletics yeah that's for moving things around and lifting them up, I'll make grapple and shove athletics checks". Then they two never talked to each other or brought up their changes in any design meeting ever.

[Kryx]

In 3.5, 3 there was no catch-all athletics skill and no skills that could sensibly be constructed include such things. When you only have "Swim" and "Jump" and grappling and shoving people using their own rules, good design or bad design it's at least internally consistent to have no skill check apply to busting down doors and pushing over statues. In 5e though "Athletics" already covers pushing things over and moving them in the combat rules and the general concept of "Athletics" broadly includes those.
Athletics isn't a catch-all. It's a group of several items to make them equal in value to some other skills.

I agree the system is weird, but the solution isn't to group everything into 1 skill for each ability. Especially since constitution doesn't have a skill.

But I don't have a proposed solution.

[Easy_Lee]

climbing doesn't require a check at all absent difficult conditions, it just requires additional movement.

If we were talking a slippery vertical surface, or one with few handholds, then maybe a Strength (Athletics) check.

A rope is clearly neither of those extreme scenarios, so the DM used bad judgment in calling for you to roll there.

I agree, but that's the point I was trying to make. If he'd asked me to burst a rope, or break a chain, I would have known what check I needed to make. Since I was descending a rope, there isn't a fixed skill DC for that. So the DM said 15. Worst of all, I think he got that number out of an official WOTC campaign, though I'm unsure.

I've heard that athletics 15 is the acceptable DC for climbing up a slippery rope, not climbing down a dry one I just pulled out of my pack. But the point is that I don't know. And if there were standard checks for this kind of common thing, i think that would save time for DMs and help players plan characters.

Edit: And for the record, I don't ask people to make checks for climbing a rope unless there's something odd going on, like someone trying to shake them off.

[Vogonjeltz]

I agree, but that's the point I was trying to make. If he'd asked me to burst a rope, or break a chain, I would have known what check I needed to make. Since I was descending a rope, there isn't a fixed skill DC for that. So the DM said 15. Worst of all, I think he got that number out of an official WOTC campaign, though I'm unsure.

I've heard that athletics 15 is the acceptable DC for climbing up a slippery rope, not climbing down a dry one I just pulled out of my pack. But the point is that I don't know. And if there were standard checks for this kind of common thing, i think that would save time for DMs and help players plan characters.

Edit: And for the record, I don't ask people to make checks for climbing a rope unless there's something odd going on, like someone trying to shake them off.

My point exactly. You know that there's no DC for such an activity because the rules in the PHB specifically indicate that it only requires movement.

So what you, as a player, could do in response to an unreasonable request by a DM is indicate that it's unreasonable because: The PHB says checks are for these situations, and this isn't one such situation.

Now, if the DM goes on to ignore this, the real problem is the DM is not applying the rules correctly, not that the rules don't cover this situation. They do cover it.

[Easy_Lee]

My point exactly. You know that there's no DC for such an activity because the rules in the PHB specifically indicate that it only requires movement.

So what you, as a player, could do in response to an unreasonable request by a DM is indicate that it's unreasonable because: The PHB says checks are for these situations, and this isn't one such situation.

Now, if the DM goes on to ignore this, the real problem is the DM is not applying the rules correctly, not that the rules don't cover this situation. They do cover it.

In the case of climbing a rope, perhaps yes. But what about the strength DC to kick down a wooden door?