skill tricks for 5E

[stoutstien]

just scrape paper thoughts at the moment but the thread about rouges not feeling epic got me thinking about ways to make skill more impactful without a complete rewrite and i dug out my complete scoundrel and was reading over the skill tricks and was wondering if we could port a few of them in. could gate them behind certain prof bonus amounts so they can "learn them" as they lv up.

wall jumper- need prof in acrobatics and athletics and expertise in one them to allow a long/high jump up or off a wall.
walk the walls- with prof in acrobatics and at least a +4 prof bonus you can dash to run up a wall treating it like difficult terrain.

[Cynthaer]

I'm not necessarily in favor of or opposed to this, but I'd recommend having a very strong design goal here, so you can determine whether or not you're accomplishing it or not.

For instance, are you trying to help players who might not be forward and "creative" do cool things with martial characters? Are you trying to address an actual mechanical imbalance? Let's be clear on why we want to make skills more "impactful".

As for your first example, consider that this is basically just the Monk's level 9 class feature. And one of the Happy Fun Hour subclasses was a Rogue archetype (Acrobat, I think) that also had a similar ability.

To me, this raises a few questions that your design should answer:

1. Won't this step on the toes of existing (sub)class features?

2. Instead of gating behind proficiency bonuses, why not just make them level-based class features?

3. Some of the lower-level tricks (let's take "jumping off a wall for extra height") are plausible things any player might choose to do already. Doesn't formalizing them have the effect of restricting what players might try, and potentially restrict creativity?

[Man_Over_Game]

3. Some of the lower-level tricks (let's take "jumping off a wall for extra height") are plausible things any player might choose to do already. Doesn't formalizing them have the effect of restricting what players might try, and potentially restrict creativity?

Some of the concerns (illustrated in the aforementioned thread) are that skills don't reflect "heroism" like things like attacks or spells do.

The effectiveness of an attack scales with your level, through things like Extra Attack, Rage, Sneak Attack or other benefits. Spells are gated behind spell slots and spell levels, so your effectiveness with magic, even when your DCs are the same, are restricted based on caster level.

A peasant has a 5% chance to deal about 6 damage to a Dragon before getting eaten. He also has a 0% chance of casting Tasha's Hideous Laughter (a low level spell).

Skills are the odd man out.

The same peasant (with a +1 mod, +2 proficiency) has a 20% chance to hit a DC 20 check.
The lvl20 Hero of the Universe, with a +4 modifier and a +6 proficiency has a 55% chance to make the same check. The Peasant, as far as skill DC goes, is 30% as effective as a level 20 adventurer.

Damage matters with level. Spells matter with level. Skills don't. I think the primary goal of any skill-based homebrew should be to separate the commoner from the adventurer. Define how you can do something at level 20 better than you could have done it at level 1. Because right now, the main thing is roughly a +6 difference, and Advantage is already available with roughly a +4 difference and can be applied with a Help action.

Some numbers for reference:



DC
Peasant (+3)
Peasant w/Adv
Hero (+10)


10
70%
91%
100%


15
45%
70%
80%


20
20%
36%
55%


25
0%
0%
30%



(Statistics pulled from Anydice) (https://anydice.com/program/140a1)


The biggest difference I see is that the Adventurer gets better at doing really mundane things (DC 10, a minor nuisance), or better at doing things that are really stupid (25 DC, often resulting in death when failed).

[stoutstien]

I'm not necessarily in favor of or opposed to this, but I'd recommend having a very strong design goal here, so you can determine whether or not you're accomplishing it or not.

For instance, are you trying to help players who might not be forward and "creative" do cool things with martial characters? Are you trying to address an actual mechanical imbalance? Let's be clear on why we want to make skills more "impactful".

As for your first example, consider that this is basically just the Monk's level 9 class feature. And one of the Happy Fun Hour subclasses was a Rogue archetype (Acrobat, I think) that also had a similar ability.

To me, this raises a few questions that your design should answer:

1. Won't this step on the toes of existing (sub)class features?

2. Instead of gating behind proficiency bonuses, why not just make them level-based class features?

3. Some of the lower-level tricks (let's take "jumping off a wall for extra height") are plausible things any player might choose to do already. Doesn't formalizing them have the effect of restricting what players might try, and potentially restrict creativity?
Lot of good questions.
1. I see it the opposite way. Subclasses step on the toes of the skill by locking options into subclass feature the other classes can now no longer do that even though arguably you could have done it prior. The goal would be to make the skill trick much less powerful. So comparing the monks wall walk vs skill trick the trick needs a cap of say 1/3 max movement speed? I just tossed on difficult terrain because it would cut it in half right off but may need to be fiddle with.

2. Like I said this is mostly just spitballing we could gate it behind player level, stat numbers, or even a feat.

3. The trick should all be possible but the skill tricks should guaranteed results or at least have a higher chance of succeeding beyond just the expertise feature. Any player can try the wall jump but the player with the skill trick knows they can.

@manovergame
I guess the skill system is even worse than I thought lol. Now I know I'm going to sit down any hammer this out

[Man_Over_Game]

Lot of good questions.
1. I see it the opposite way. Subclasses step on the toes of the skill by locking options into subclass feature the other classes can now no longer do that even though arguably you could have done it prior. The goal would be to make the skill trick much less powerful. So comparing the monks wall walk vs skill trick the trick needs a cap of say 1/3 max movement speed? I just tossed on difficult terrain because it would cut it in half right off but may need to be fiddle with.

2. Like I said this is mostly just spitballing we could gate it behind player level, stat numbers, or even a feat.

3. The trick should all be possible but the skill tricks should guaranteed results or at least have a higher chance of succeeding beyond just the expertise feature. Any player can try the wall jump but the player with the skill trick knows they can.

@manovergame
I guess the skill system is even worse than I thought lol. Now I know I'm going to sit down any hammer this out

I honestly think that tying in a Disadvantage equivalent is the perfect equalizer (or something that requires two successes, which is the same thing).

Doing so results in this:



DC
Peasant w/Disadv
Adventurer w/Disadv


10
49%
100%


15
20%
64%


20
4%
30%



Which is a lot closer to the curve that we'd expect when comparing Peasants to Heroes. Consider that a Peasant only has a 5% chance to hit a dragon, which seems coincidentally similar to their ability to pull off a Very Hard Check with Disadv.

[stoutstien]

I honestly think that tying in a Disadvantage equivalent is the perfect equalizer (or something that requires two successes, which is the same thing).

Doing so results in this:



DC
Peasant w/Disadv
Adventurer w/Disadv


10
49%
100%


15
20%
64%


20
4%
30%



Which is a lot closer to the curve that we'd expect when comparing Peasants to Heroes. Consider that a Peasant only has a 5% chance to hit a dragon, which seems coincidentally similar to their ability to pull off a Very Hard Check with Disadv.
So is expertise not a big of enough increase to allow skill focused concepts to succeed at hard tasks reliably or should those check be reduced but must be passed 2x ?
2 DC 15 checks vs 10DC 20.

[PhoenixPhyre]

If you can succeed on a task reliably without a class feature (ie just by your own skill modifier), you shouldn't be rolling for that task because it poses no meaningful chance of failure.

That's the fundamental problem with this--the types of tasks that adventurers should be rolling for are a tiny fraction of all tasks. If you're rolling, there should be a meaningful chance of failure and an interesting consequence for failure. Otherwise you should just say yes.

And by the way, commoners have +0 and no proficiency in adventuring skills. So they're always at +0 modifiers.

[stoutstien]

If you can succeed on a task reliably without a class feature (ie just by your own skill modifier), you shouldn't be rolling for that task because it poses no meaningful chance of failure.

That's the fundamental problem with this--the types of tasks that adventurers should be rolling for are a tiny fraction of all tasks. If you're rolling, there should be a meaningful chance of failure and an interesting consequence for failure. Otherwise you should just say yes.

And by the way, commoners have +0 and no proficiency in adventuring skills. So they're always at +0 modifiers.
Works great until we hit the space where what is a reasonable task a character can succeed at is grey. Climbing a gate. sure. Walking across the top of said gate/fence while shooting a bow?
I'm more focused on the upper end of this area by suggestions of adding tricks when a player has invested alot to be good at something but still have to rely on good dice rolls

[PhoenixPhyre]

Works great until we hit the space where what is a reasonable task a character can succeed at is grey. Climbing a gate. sure. Walking across the top of said gate/fence while shooting a bow?
I'm more focused on the upper end of this area by suggestions of adding tricks when a player has invested alot to be good at something but still have to rely on good dice rolls

It's supposed to be grey. Because if it's black and white, there's no need for a roll. As a note, only two classes can "invest" anything. Everyone else gets the same set of choices.

My issue is that with "skill tricks", you're making what was possible before (depending on the situation) locked behind a feature. That was something that 3e did that bugged me. By mechanizing things, it made it clear that you can't do it without the permission slip. Same with moving things into feats. I prefer to just presume competence and bump my threshold for "needs a roll" up some. That's something that any DM can do without any specific mechanics.

[stoutstien]

It's supposed to be grey. Because if it's black and white, there's no need for a roll. As a note, only two classes can "invest" anything. Everyone else gets the same set of choices.

My issue is that with "skill tricks", you're making what was possible before (depending on the situation) locked behind a feature. That was something that 3e did that bugged me. By mechanizing things, it made it clear that you can't do it without the permission slip. Same with moving things into feats. I prefer to just presume competence and bump my threshold for "needs a roll" up some. That's something that any DM can do without any specific mechanics.
I guess it depends if taken a given skill is an investment or not.

what if we didn't call them tricks. what if we call them a reasonable action that a person at this certain proficiency could succeed at without a roll?
a list a DM can hand in their players so they have a rough idea of where they would rule that gray area

[PhoenixPhyre]

I guess it depends if taken a given skill is an investment or not.

what if we didn't call them tricks. what if we call them a reasonable action that a person at this certain proficiency could succeed at without a roll?
a list a DM can hand in their players so they have a rough idea of where they would rule that gray area

That's going to be very setting and scenario dependent. For example, I'll let my free-flying "silly" campaign get away with a lot more than my more "grounded" group. Same world, same time period.

But I could see some value in something like:

Tier 1: Dexterity (Acrobatics)
Someone with a high modifier should be able to ...
Someone with a medium modifier should be able to ...
Someone with a low modifier should be able to ...

Where the ... represent an example or so of something that should be about a 25% or less chance of failure (my personal threshold for "no need to roll"). Whether the modifier comes from ability scores or proficiency (or expertise) shouldn't matter, IMO.

[Snowbluff]

Well there's a n easy way to handle this. Just make it a DC 30 "Nearly Impossible". Literally any class other than rogue or maybe bard would have a hard time getting that high regularly. Then it scales with level.

[stoutstien]

That's going to be very setting and scenario dependent. For example, I'll let my free-flying "silly" campaign get away with a lot more than my more "grounded" group. Same world, same time period.

But I could see some value in something like:

Tier 1: Dexterity (Acrobatics)
Someone with a high modifier should be able to ...
Someone with a medium modifier should be able to ...
Someone with a low modifier should be able to ...

Where the ... represent an example or so of something that should be about a 25% or less chance of failure (my personal threshold for "no need to roll"). Whether the modifier comes from ability scores or proficiency (or expertise) shouldn't matter, IMO.
It definitely is going to vary but I think It could be a good tool. Sort of a reverse DC table

[DrLoveMonkey]

I had a bit of an idea over on the other thread. What if tricks or class abilities or stuff like that just made the impossible possible rather than making the impossible trivial like magic does. Like an ability or threshold or something where a barbarian or a rogue could scale a well maintained smooth castle wall as though it were a craggy cliff face. They’re still climbing at half speed without other feats/abilities, and they still need to roll for it as though it were a cliff, but it lets them epically scale a surface that a level 3 character couldn’t even roll on.

[Mordaedil]

To me, this raises a few questions that your design should answer:

1. Won't this step on the toes of existing (sub)class features?

2. Instead of gating behind proficiency bonuses, why not just make them level-based class features?

3. Some of the lower-level tricks (let's take "jumping off a wall for extra height") are plausible things any player might choose to do already. Doesn't formalizing them have the effect of restricting what players might try, and potentially restrict creativity?

Skill tricks in 3.5 were basically features you attained by meeting certain requirements and investing two skill points into attaining. Even then, the skill tricks were limited by the fact that you could only perform the once per encounter (the idea being once someone had seen you do a trick, it wouldn't work a second time). Skill tricks were a nice addition to an edition that had very stated goals for each check of ability, but 5e is an edition where you don't worry about investment of skill points every level, so much of that isn't viable.

We'd almost have to just write them as "synergies" where two skills work together to accomplish something superhuman and possibly just by having a certain level of proficiency in two skills would be enough to allow you to effortlessly perform them. That said, it's kind of unnecessary when a lot of filler skills have been vetted out.

[Cynthaer]

I guess it depends if taken a given skill is an investment or not.

what if we didn't call them tricks. what if we call them a reasonable action that a person at this certain proficiency could succeed at without a roll?
a list a DM can hand in their players so they have a rough idea of where they would rule that gray area
This brings me back to the first part of my original post:


[...] I'd recommend having a very strong design goal here, so you can determine whether or not you're accomplishing it or not.

For instance, are you trying to help players who might not be forward and "creative" do cool things with martial characters? Are you trying to address an actual mechanical imbalance? Let's be clear on why we want to make skills more "impactful".
What's the purpose of this list? Are you encouraging players to try remarkable things by giving examples of remarkable things you'd allow? Or are you trying to add skill-based pseudo-features that unlock previously impossible actions?

I think the answer is very important for deciding what this list should look like.

(And to be 100% clear—I still have no strong feelings for or against this idea. I just want to help make sure that you end up with something that does what you want it to do.)

[PhoenixPhyre]

What's the purpose of this list? Are you encouraging players to try remarkable things by giving examples of remarkable things you'd allow? Or are you trying to add skill-based pseudo-features that unlock previously impossible actions?

I'd support the first purpose (and might do further thinking along those lines for my own setting). I'd oppose (or just not find useful) the second--I don't like the mechanization of things tied so closely to the fiction layer.

[stoutstien]

i like the idea of a low/med/hard action cross refinance with a low/med/high fantasy chart.
doesn't address the actual problem with the skill system but could help with open communication at a table of what thresholds skills can reach at certain modifiers levels.

[Bjarkmundur]

I'm game!

I love creating little hand outs and printable, and can definitely see me having a deck of cards with small ability blocks which carefully explain the rules behind all sorts of things.

I'll get digging on all the official ways skills can be used, write up the rules and add some rules and some flavour text.

From there we can work out some 'hero abilities', that are maybe just out of reach for the avarage Joe, but maybe available to PCs with expertise or some other niche situation at the DMs discretion.

I also learned that by writing only a players 'trained' skills on his character sheet that player would always look for excuses to use them. I simply recommend not having the entire skill list on character sheets. Having a list of 'things your character is good at' will make a player start trying to apply those skills to EVERY situation, and will often overlook a simple answer to a very creative and cool way of a skill.

"I'm going to try to intimidate him"
"You're going to try to intimidate the Ancient Gold Dragon?"
"Yeah!"
"Why?"
"Because my character is trained in Intimidation, of course"

[PhoenixPhyre]

I also learned that by writing only a players 'trained' skills on his character sheet that player would always look for excuses to use them. I simply recommend not having the entire skill list on character sheets. Having a list of 'things your character is good at' will make a player start trying to apply those skills to EVERY situation, and will often overlook a simple answer to a very creative and cool way of a skill.

"I'm going to try to intimidate him"
"You're going to try to intimidate the Ancient Gold Dragon?"
"Yeah!"
"Why?"
"Because my character is trained in Intimidation, of course"

See--this is exactly what I don't want. Proficiency is not training. And having one hammer and always looking for matching nails is bad play in my eyes. I want people acting naturally and not looking for character sheet buttons to press.

One of the big innovations in 5e from my perspective is the idea that anyone can try anything and have a decent chance of succeeding. The whole "specialize or die" mentality leads to super flat characters. As Heinlein said, specialization is for insects.

And I want my players to not think in mechanical terms. Tell me what your character is doing, not what skill they're rolling. Because they don't roll skills. In fact, players don't call for checks. The DM decides if a check is needed, and you're rolling an Ability check, not a Skill check.

[Bjarkmundur]

I think we've missed the point entirely.

The original question was

Can we import skill tricks from Complete Scoundrel into 5e

Answer: Yes you can. There are many possible consequences for doing so, but the only way knowing how it will really impact the game is to try it out.

If you need any help with porting them, just send me a message :)

[stoutstien]

See--this is exactly what I don't want. Proficiency is not training. And having one hammer and always looking for matching nails is bad play in my eyes. I want people acting naturally and not looking for character sheet buttons to press.

One of the big innovations in 5e from my perspective is the idea that anyone can try anything and have a decent chance of succeeding. The whole "specialize or die" mentality leads to super flat characters. As Heinlein said, specialization is for insects.

And I want my players to not think in mechanical terms. Tell me what your character is doing, not what skill they're rolling. Because they don't roll skills. In fact, players don't call for checks. The DM decides if a check is needed, and you're rolling an Ability check, not a Skill check.
I agree wholeheartedly and teaching players not to look at a character sheet like a list of options to pick from is a constant struggle.
but on that note. if anyone can attempt a check and have a decent chance of passing an ablity check, why play a character that focuses on them? Everyone would just take perception, stealth, and athletic/acrobatic if they know they can pass any check most of the time without any investment.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I agree wholeheartedly and teaching players not to look at a character sheet like a list of options to pick from is a constant struggle.
but on that note. if anyone can attempt a check and have a decent chance of passing an ablity check, why play a character that focuses on them? Everyone would just take perception, stealth, and athletic/acrobatic if they know they can pass any check most of the time without any investment.

You can attempt, but you're not as good at them as a specialist. In the case of expertise, someone with it will rarely fail*, or can put their ability scores elsewhere.

Also, being a skill monkey isn't the defining feature of bards and rogues. It's a side feature. Bards have magic, rogues have sneak attack and all the rest of their features. Rogues are not skills, the class.

* At level 5, a rogue with expertise and a +4 ability mod cannot fail a DC 10 check and only fails a DC 15 check 20% of the time. And stealth, in particular, is usually against things with relatively low DCs, because few monsters have perception proficiency.

And at level 11, there's not many monsters that can even possibly detect them, even at advantage (minimum roll 23). You can literally hide from a bloodhound behind some bushes.

And even on things you don't have expertise in, you have a minimum roll of 10, meaning you can't fail any proficient DC 10 checks.

[stoutstien]

You can attempt, but you're not as good at them as a specialist. In the case of expertise, someone with it will rarely fail*, or can put their ability scores elsewhere.

Also, being a skill monkey isn't the defining feature of bards and rogues. It's a side feature. Bards have magic, rogues have sneak attack and all the rest of their features. Rogues are not skills, the class.

* At level 5, a rogue with expertise and a +4 ability mod cannot fail a DC 10 check and only fails a DC 15 check 20% of the time. And stealth, in particular, is usually against things with relatively low DCs, because few monsters have perception proficiency.

And at level 11, there's not many monsters that can even possibly detect them, even at advantage (minimum roll 23). You can literally hide from a bloodhound behind some bushes.

And even on things you don't have expertise in, you have a minimum roll of 10, meaning you can't fail any proficient DC 10 checks.

This example is Why I think stealth is part of the holy the of skills in 5e.(stealth perception athletic/ acrobatic)
They may be too good within the current ablity structure.
When the last time you saw a player take a knowledge based skill past just proficiency if that. other than purely flavor.
Medicine?
Animal handling?
Any tools that arn't theives tools?

[PhoenixPhyre]

This example is Why I think stealth is part of the holy the of skills in 5e.(stealth perception athletic/ acrobatic)
They may be too good within the current ablity structure.
When the last time you saw a player take a knowledge based skill past just proficiency if that. other than purely flavor.
Medicine?
Animal handling?
Any tools that arn't theives tools?

I have yet to see a circumstance where one person having off-the-charts stealth has been an advantage over having only "great" stealth. Because there's always that one person who rolls a 1...

I see expertise being much more useful for "pretending" to have a higher ability score than you do.

Consider this:

At low levels, expertise with a +0 ability modifier is worth the same as having a +2 or +3 modifier (for that skill only). At high levels, it's like having a capped (or above!) modifier. While still being able to put those points elsewhere.

So a rogue with Investigation expertise (a common thing IMX) can leave his INT lower and still act like it's maxed. Or Persuasion and CHA. Etc. And you get 4 of them at high levels, so you can cover a huge range of topics. For example, a level 17 rogue with +5 DEX and +0 in all the other skill-stats (so not CON) could have the following:

+11 Stealth (just proficiency, more than enough to never fail a stealth check, especially with Reliable Talent).
+12 Perception (expertise, enough to detect almost any stealthy enemy unless they roll really really well).
+12 Athletics (expertise, enough to grapple just about anyone)
+12 Investigation (expertise, minimum roll 22). Or History. Or Arcana. Or Nature.
+12 Deception (expertise, minimum roll 22). Or Persuasion. Or Intimidation. Or Performance (lol)

Who needs a +17 to thieves tools? Most locks don't go above 15 or 20, and even with a +11 your minimum roll is 21 with reliable talent. You don't get any benefit from beating the passive Perception by an extra 6, so really expertise in Stealth is wasted 90% of the time.

You're much better off putting those expertise choices into something you don't already do very well. Unlike 3e, where it was specialize or fail, 5e's Ability checks reward broad capabilities.

Bards are the masters of Ability checks (without proficiency), because they get half-proficiency automatically anyway (Jack of All Trades). Rogues are the masters of ability checks that allow proficiency--they get the most proficiencies and the most expertise, and Reliable Talent.

[stoutstien]

I have yet to see a circumstance where one person having off-the-charts stealth has been an advantage over having only "great" stealth. Because there's always that one person who rolls a 1...

I see expertise being much more useful for "pretending" to have a higher ability score than you do.

Consider this:

At low levels, expertise with a +0 ability modifier is worth the same as having a +2 or +3 modifier (for that skill only). At high levels, it's like having a capped (or above!) modifier. While still being able to put those points elsewhere.

So a rogue with Investigation expertise (a common thing IMX) can leave his INT lower and still act like it's maxed. Or Persuasion and CHA. Etc. And you get 4 of them at high levels, so you can cover a huge range of topics. For example, a level 17 rogue with +5 DEX and +0 in all the other skill-stats (so not CON) could have the following:

+11 Stealth (just proficiency, more than enough to never fail a stealth check, especially with Reliable Talent).
+12 Perception (expertise, enough to detect almost any stealthy enemy unless they roll really really well).
+12 Athletics (expertise, enough to grapple just about anyone)
+12 Investigation (expertise, minimum roll 22). Or History. Or Arcana. Or Nature.
+12 Deception (expertise, minimum roll 22). Or Persuasion. Or Intimidation. Or Performance (lol)

Who needs a +17 to thieves tools? Most locks don't go above 15 or 20, and even with a +11 your minimum roll is 21 with reliable talent. You don't get any benefit from beating the passive Perception by an extra 6, so really expertise in Stealth is wasted 90% of the time.

You're much better off putting those expertise choices into something you don't already do very well. Unlike 3e, where it was specialize or fail, 5e's Ability checks reward broad capabilities.

Bards are the masters of Ability checks (without proficiency), because they get half-proficiency automatically anyway (Jack of All Trades). Rogues are the masters of ability checks that allow proficiency--they get the most proficiencies and the most expertise, and Reliable Talent.

now I want to do some kind of pole to figure out what skills are taken more regularly with/without expertise.

Why do you say lock stop at 20? are you referring to Published adventures I don't run though so I have no idea but I've used locks up to a DC of 35 and a single lock at 40. I don't cater my campaign to any single player but I aspect one to be really good at getting into places that are nigh impossible to get getting into.

[PhoenixPhyre]

now I want to do some kind of pole to figure out what skills are taken more regularly with/without expertise.

Why do you say lock stop at 20? are you referring to Published adventures I don't run though so I have no idea but I've used locks up to a DC of 35 and a single lock at 40. I don't cater my campaign to any single player but I aspect one to be really good at getting into places that are nigh impossible to get getting into.

The default lock is DC 15. 5e does not use DCs above 30, and those rarely. The DMG is quite clear that for most things the DCs go up to 20 and stop there. All the tables they provide (for social results and tools, for example), stop at 20. Everything stops at 20 except in exceptional cases. You can run a perfectly fine campaign with only DCs of 10, 15, and 20.

A DC 40 check is literally, absolutely impossible using the Ability check system unless you're inundating people with ability books (of which you'd need to have read 3 in order to even have a chance). The highest result possible (expertise + max score) is 37: natural 20 + 12 (expertise) + 5 (ability score).

Remember, ability checks are only for circumstances where the proposed action has both of the following properties:
* Reasonable chance of failure but is not impossible (like a DC 40 lock).
* Meaningful consequences for failure (ie can't be simply retried. If it can, just let them do it for 10x the time)

[JNAProductions]

now I want to do some kind of pole to figure out what skills are taken more regularly with/without expertise.

Why do you say lock stop at 20? are you referring to Published adventures I don't run though so I have no idea but I've used locks up to a DC of 35 and a single lock at 40. I don't cater my campaign to any single player but I aspect one to be really good at getting into places that are nigh impossible to get getting into.

Yeah... You CAN get a DC 40 lock with as little as one Stat tome, but it requires Expertise in Thieve's Tools and an Ioun Stone of Mastery.

Alternatively, Guidance can let you hit DC 41! Assuming you have Expertise, a maxed stat, and rolled a 20+4.

The odds of picking a DC 40 lock with Guidance, Expertise, and 20 Dex on a level 17+ Rogue is...

Less than 4%. 3.75%, to be exact.

[Coffee_Dragon]

It's easier for a level 20 rogue once per short rest. :smalltongue:

Also, did you take into account inspiration (bardic or otherwise)?

[stoutstien]

The 40 DC lock was meant to near impossible but I hate just flat out saying no they can't pick the lock.
The party was well aware that it's a god level check to bypass the door without the keys.

If DC never go past 20 and I knew that as a player I would agree expertise would be better spent addressing weak points.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The 40 DC lock was meant to near impossible but I hate just flat out saying no they can't pick the lock.
The party was well aware that it's a god level check to bypass the door without the keys.

If DC never go past 20 and I knew that as a player I would agree expertise would be better spent addressing weak points.

I personally, as a player, hate being told "you can try but you won't succeed." Just tell me no and move on. It feels like worse railroading because it's hidden. And there are lots of things you can't do. Jumping to the moon is a classic example. Climbing a tree that won't bear your weight is another. Dancing on a spider's web (not a giant spider, because that might be doable). Etc.

Knowing that 99% of all checks are between 10 and 20 makes things work so much nicer. Having that unbounded space above it leads to the "specialize or fail" runaway problems you see in other editions.

Remember also that straight ability checks are the default--having proficiency is a bonus, not a requirement (except for PHB locks, which require proficiency. But they're an exception.) If you start setting common DCs in the 20+ range, you're saying that only those with maxed ability scores and/or proficiency can apply. Which goes against the whole design.

I'm totally ok with gating a lot of things behind classes, races, or backgrounds, rather than the Ability check system. "You're a wizard, so you'd know that..." or "All fighters trained at <PC's school of origin> would be familiar with..." or "Dwarves from <region> would recognize/be capable of..." Someone else might be able to get that info/do that thing, but would require a roll. I think DMs don't incorporate things like backgrounds nearly enough. It's a good way of making their choices there matter other than as "which two skills do you want?"

[stoutstien]

I personally, as a player, hate being told "you can try but you won't succeed." Just tell me no and move on. It feels like worse railroading because it's hidden. And there are lots of things you can't do. Jumping to the moon is a classic example. Climbing a tree that won't bear your weight is another. Dancing on a spider's web (not a giant spider, because that might be doable). Etc.

Knowing that 99% of all checks are between 10 and 20 makes things work so much nicer. Having that unbounded space above it leads to the "specialize or fail" runaway problems you see in other editions.

Remember also that straight ability checks are the default--having proficiency is a bonus, not a requirement (except for PHB locks, which require proficiency. But they're an exception.) If you start setting common DCs in the 20+ range, you're saying that only those with maxed ability scores and/or proficiency can apply. Which goes against the whole design.

I'm totally ok with gating a lot of things behind classes, races, or backgrounds, rather than the Ability check system. "You're a wizard, so you'd know that..." or "All fighters trained at <PC's school of origin> would be familiar with..." or "Dwarves from <region> would recognize/be capable of..." Someone else might be able to get that info/do that thing, but would require a roll. I think DMs don't incorporate things like backgrounds nearly enough. It's a good way of making their choices there matter other than as "which two skills do you want?"

Well they did have about 2.4% chance to pick the lock at the time if I recall.
I would say about 80% of the DC I set are 15-20 but I still believe higher DCs have a place.
I don't think that rouge being the only class to be able to grant expertise in lock picks(now UA artificer I don't remember) was intended to be a trap options

[PhoenixPhyre]

Well they did have about 2.4% chance to pick the lock at the time if I recall.
I would say about 80% of the DC I set are 15-20 but I still believe higher DCs have a place.
I don't think that rouge being the only class to be able to grant expertise in lock picks(now UA artificer I don't remember) was intended to be a trap options

It's not a trap, at least below level 11 when you get Reliable Talent. But most games never get that far. Sure, it's less likely to be useful because most locks (even in published material) are in the 15-20 range), but it's useful against arcane lock, which adds 10 to the DC (so a stock lock is DC 25).

And don't forget DC 10 checks. They're the most common ones I use, because they encourage people to try things they're not specialists in. I dislike the "ok, who has the best modifier" discussions players have--it feels like meta-gaming at least for the things that aren't obviously tied to one particular, measurable skill (like lock-picking). I also make a habit of asking specific people to roll specific checks--I might ask player A for an Intelligence (History) check, player B for an Intelligence (Arcana) check, and player C for an Intelligence (Nature or Religion) check to identify something. This represents them discussing the matter. Or I might say "I need an Intelligence (Arcana, Nature, and History) check. Each of you roll me one, but you can pick who rolls what." This also avoids the "everyone roll until one person succeeds" issue--everyone has rolled.

And for social things I'll have the NPC direct their questions/comments toward specific people depending on the situation and who they trust. The scared urchin girl isn't going to talk to the big scary half-orc, but may to the kind-looking halfling woman. The king is going to talk to the well-dressed noble character, not the scruffy, crazy-bearded hermit one. Etc.

[stoutstien]

It's not a trap, at least below level 11 when you get Reliable Talent. But most games never get that far. Sure, it's less likely to be useful because most locks (even in published material) are in the 15-20 range), but it's useful against arcane lock, which adds 10 to the DC (so a stock lock is DC 25).

And don't forget DC 10 checks. They're the most common ones I use, because they encourage people to try things they're not specialists in. I dislike the "ok, who has the best modifier" discussions players have--it feels like meta-gaming at least for the things that aren't obviously tied to one particular, measurable skill (like lock-picking). I also make a habit of asking specific people to roll specific checks--I might ask player A for an Intelligence (History) check, player B for an Intelligence (Arcana) check, and player C for an Intelligence (Nature or Religion) check to identify something. This represents them discussing the matter. Or I might say "I need an Intelligence (Arcana, Nature, and History) check. Each of you roll me one, but you can pick who rolls what." This also avoids the "everyone roll until one person succeeds" issue--everyone has rolled.

And for social things I'll have the NPC direct their questions/comments toward specific people depending on the situation and who they trust. The scared urchin girl isn't going to talk to the big scary half-orc, but may to the kind-looking halfling woman. The king is going to talk to the well-dressed noble character, not the scruffy, crazy-bearded hermit one. Etc.

I think we agree more than not. I just wish all the skills had support equality.