Developing Example Skill DCs for 5e

[Mongobear]

Spawned from a 30 page discussion starting here:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?600004-Why-the-hate-on-5e

I have started this thread where the pro-DC Examples side can discuss this topic and develop a fitting way to measure the differences in what Easy/Medium/Hard/etc actually means, in the context of narrating why the DM chose that DC.

Hopefully, this will grow to encompass the entire skill system of 5e for those of us that actually want this sort of a guide

I foresee needing several things in order to accurately develop these tables.

1) Examples of activities from each Skill that can be empyrically shown to be more/less difficult than others.

2) A unified way to determine what to measure those DCs with, and categorize them. Whether that means sticking to the current 5/10/15/20 table, or ranking them in a new way that intuitively follows Bounded Accuracy in a way similar to AC vs Attack Modifiers.

3) Differentiating examples that, while relevant, are more in the realm of Advantage/Disadvantage than its own tier of DCs compared to the rest.

NOTE - This topic is aimed at those of us that actually want something like this. It is not asking whether it's needed, that is the purpose of the thread that spawned this. Please direct any "5e is fine, this is unneeded" discussion to the parent thread.

Suggestions are welcome to develop this into a fully formed system.

[AdAstra]

My personal preference for DC tables, when they exist, is for them to be as comprehensive as as feasible. In all but the most obscure situations, a DM should be able to look at the table, and with nothing more than basic addition/ subtraction (as well as multiplying x2, which is nearly as simple), be able to construct a DC for that scenario. IE not just suggested DCs, but a meaningful way to synthesize those dcs in a variety of situations.

What would also be critical, is describing what sort of circumstances should not require a roll at all. As an example, climbing in this edition is automatic if unless the climb is notably difficult to begin with, so talking about when a check is NOT needed will be just as important as deciding what the DC should be.

Another good idea would be to set a cohesive standard for what degree of fantasy we are going for. Do we want to make it such that a commoner represents a “normal” untrained human? Or do we want a more mythical standard.

EDIT: Okay, climbing was a very common example in the previous thread, so let me knock out a preliminary table that I think makes sense. Sorry about the formatting, currently on mobile.

Base DC

If the final DC is 0 or less, there is no reason to roll for most player characters.

DC 0- surface was specifically designed to be climbed on easily, or has large handholds and ledges to grab and comfortably stand on, or anything that you can grab the top of without jumping. Ladders, ship’s rigging, trees with large branches easily reached by the climber, book cases, a small fence, or cliff faces with many large slablike protrusions.

DC 5- The surface has densely-packed handholds or crevices to hold or stand on, large handholds, or anything you can jump, grab the top of, and pull yourself on to. Trees with widely spaced or small branches at your level, a hanging rope ladder or knotted rope, rock faces with lots of cracks, small ledges, and significant outcrops, or a surface with a rope to pull yourself up with.

DC 10- The surface has small or sparse protrusions that can be grabbed and stood on, and/or other rough surfaces to brace against or wrap around with one's arms and legs. If both apply, then use DC 5 instead. Particularly ornate buildings, large wooden fences, trees with no branches, a cliff face with a good amount of cracks and outcrops, or a hanging unknotted rope.

DC 15- The surface has sparse, small protrusions, or can be grabbed but not stood upon. If both are available, then use DC 10 instead. The sides of most houses, climbing up a pole, wrought iron fences and gates, trees with no branches and smooth bark, or a stone cliff face with occasional small cracks and outcrops.

DC 20- The surface is uneven, with surface imperfections and small divots, but few to no protrusions to grab. A massive boulder or a wall of mortared stones, or the hide of a giant creature.

DC 25- Flat, rough-textured vertical surfaces cannot normally be climbed. Only use this DC if the surface is sloped away from the bottom.

DC 30- Perfectly smooth vertical surfaces cannot normally be climbed. Only use this DC if the surface is sloped away from the bottom.

One can create handholds or crevices in a surface with the proper equipment, like ice axes and crampons.

This assumes a vertical surface, but if not, apply one of the following:

Subtract 10 if the surface slopes more than 45 degrees from vertical away from the bottom.

Subtract 5 if the surface slopes heavily away from the bottom (>15 degrees from vertical)

Subtract 2 if the surface slopes slightly away from the bottom (15 degrees from vertical or less)

Add 2 if the surface slopes slightly over the bottom (15 degrees from vertical or less)

Add 5 if the surface slopes heavily over the bottom (>15 degrees from vertical). If the surface has no handholds, it cannot be climbed.

Add 10 if the surface is sloped more than 45 degrees from vertical over the bottom, including if they are holding on the bottom of a horizontal surface. Surfaces of this slope with no handholds at all cannot be climbed.

Use all that apply:

Add 5 if the surface is slippery.

Add 2 if the surface is swaying, rocking, or otherwise unstable, like a moving creature, a swinging mast, a shaky bookcase or ladder, or a pile of unconnected objects. Add 5 if this instability is particularly extreme.

Add 5 if the surface is painful to the touch, such as sun-baked stone or frigid ice. This penalty can be ignored if the climber has adequate protection, such as gloves or Protection from Energy. If the surface is actively damaging, instead use the Taking Damage rules below

Add 5 if the climber attempts to move further than their speed on their turn, such as by Dashing.

Subtract 5 if the climber is going down a rope or pole.

Subtract 5 if the climber moves no more than 5 feet on each of their turns, and does not move outside their turn.

Taking Damage And Forced Movement If a creature takes damage or is subjected to forced movement while climbing, they must make a check equal to the climb DC+5 or lose their grip. A creature cannot be forced to make this check more than once before the start of their next turn.

Climbing For Multiple Turns Generally, if a creature succeeds on a climb check, they can continue to climb the same surface on subsequent turns without making further checks as long as conditions do not change, such as the climber's speed or the climbing surface. More checks may be warranted for particularly long climbs, or if conditions suddenly change.

[Mongobear]

My personal preference for DC tables, when they exist, is for them to be as comprehensive as as feasible. In all but the most obscure situations, a DM should be able to look at the table, and with nothing more than basic addition/ subtraction (as well as multiplying x2, which is nearly as simple), be able to construct a DC for that scenario. IE not just suggested DCs, but a meaningful way to synthesize those dcs in a variety of situations.


While this was one part from the old thread that I disagreed with you on, as it is likely impossible to categorize EVERY thing a player could use a skill, I believe there is a spot somewhere between "Enough DCs for a workable example and DC'S FOR THE DC GOD!!!"




What would also be critical, is describing what sort of circumstances should not require a roll at all. As an example, climbing in this edition is automatic if unless the climb is notably difficult to begin with, so talking about when a check is NOT needed will be just as important as deciding what the DC should be.


This is important as well. From the old thread, I linked an example table from 3.5e's PHB, it actually had a listing for "Doing this sort of thing is Impossible."

At the same time, I was considering that "Don't Roll" rules for auto-success could fall under a more encompassing method of PASSIVE SKILLS. Which means, if you are not under duress and there is no consequences for failure, you auto-pass DCs equal to 10 + Your Skill modifier.




Another good idea would be to set a cohesive standard for what degree of fantasy we are going for. Do we want to make it such that a commoner represents a “normal” untrained human? Or do we want a more mythical standard.


This I big too. I think the Standard for comparison, should be a level 1 Adventurer that's skilled at the Activity, and has his stats arranged to maximise it.

Assuming standard Array, and no Feats, our "measuring stick" should be an Adventurer with a +5 to the skill (+3 Stat mod +2 Proficiency). Not only will that fit the 5 point breakpoints, it also makes every skill easily measurable.

My reasoning is as follows--The game world doesn't (usually) have NPCs making skill checks. They're a narrative device, if the DM was his Commoners climbing a tree, they Climb a tree. If he wants the same Commoner to counterfeit Gold pieces, he does it.

The DCs relative differences should represent the people actually rolling for them, Adventurers.

[Tanarii]

How about seeing if you can provide a table for one of the most commonly used examples to start, Climbing? That should establish if the concept is feasible at all, since in theory it should be one of the simplest to provide a table that isn't wildly situational and require constant DM judgement for an individual thing being climbed.

I'll pull from the d20 SRD as a possible basis, but feel free to disregard. Note "no roll" should be valid.

Climbing:
- A slope too steep to walk up, or a knotted rope with a wall to brace against
- A rope with a wall to brace against, or a knotted rope, or a rope affected by the rope trick spell.
- A surface with ledges to hold on to and stand on, such as a very rough wall or a ship’s rigging.
- Any surface with adequate handholds and footholds (natural or artificial), such as a very rough natural rock surface or a tree, or an unknotted rope, or pulling yourself up when dangling by your hands.
- An uneven surface with some narrow handholds and footholds, such as a typical wall in a dungeon or ruins.
- A rough surface, such as a natural rock wall or a brick wall.
- An overhang or ceiling with handholds but no footholds.
- A perfectly smooth, flat, vertical surface

These were modifiers in the original table, but instead could be prerequisite to roll at all or incorporated as (possibly more than one) separate entry.
- Climbing a chimney (artificial or natural) or other location where you can brace against two opposite walls
- Climbing a corner where you can brace against perpendicular walls
- Surface is slippery

[Spriteless]

Heh, maybe 2 tables, one where the PCs are specialized regular schlubs, one where PCs are mythic. Or, just make everything one category easier for mythic.

[Mongobear]

I'll pull from the d20 SRD as a possible basis, but feel free to disregard. Note "no roll" should be valid.

Climbing
*TABLE*


Lol, this is the exact example I used in the original thread.

I was planning to use it again as a base example once we got into an agreement of where to take this.


Heh, maybe 2 tables, one where the PCs are specialized regular schlubs, one where PCs are mythic. Or, just make everything one category easier for mythic.


5e PCs aren't "regular schlubs, they the limits of Human capacity.

They're Hawkeye compared to Billy Bob who enjoys Bow Hunting.

They're Black Widow compared to a Gymnast.

Similar skillset, but a measurable magnitude of difference. And the key factor, is that PCs aren't under DM control, the NPCs do things because the DM says they do, they don't roll unless it's a contest.

[AdAstra]

By the way, in case someone missed it, I added a proposed climb table in my initial response. It lacks a detailed “when not to roll” section, but I think it might be pretty good. What do you think?

[Mongobear]

By the way, in case someone missed it, I added a proposed climb table in my initial response. It lacks a detailed “when not to roll” section, but I think it might be pretty good. What do you think?

I think your examples are fine, but the base numbers might be slightly low.

Using the other table from 3.5e, I thinks a more accurate target.

For DC modifiers, assuming we don't just use Advantage/Disadvantage for this sort of thing, I propose a simple system of +/-2 and +/-5 similar to how AC is modified by Cover. This will keep Modifier bloat contained in a reasonable fashion, and not become an unreasonable task to figure out.

If a check would have multiple instances of the same direction, use the Highest and apply (Dis)Advantage.

[AdAstra]

I think your examples are fine, but the base numbers might be slightly low.

Using the other table from 3.5e, I thinks a more accurate target.

For DC modifiers, assuming we don't just use Advantage/Disadvantage for this sort of thing, I propose a simple system of +/-2 and +/-5 similar to how AC is modified by Cover. This will keep Modifier bloat contained in a reasonable fashion, and not become an unreasonable task to figure out.

If a check would have multiple instances of the same direction, use the Highest and apply (Dis)Advantage.

How so? I don't see how someone could fail to climb a ladder in the absence of difficulties.

I want most climbs to be trivial, that's kinda the point. A character with -1 Str and no proficiency (ie, a weakling), will fail while climbing a (unknotted) rope 50% of the time (I didn't differentiate between failing to make progress and falling, but they'll fail by 5 or more 25% of the time). A character with Athletics proficiency and +3 Str will still fail 20% of the time, which I already find annoyingly high. If it was any harder it would just be silly. I want players to be able to actually take advantage of verticality in the environment, not feel like the Three Stooges.

Also, I agree on the situational modifers taking the form of +2/5, so I changed that part, though I kept the -10 from the slope. +2/5/10 should be perfectly fine.

[Mongobear]

How so? I don't see how someone could fail to climb a ladder in the absence of difficulties.

I want most climbs to be trivial, that's kinda the point. A character with -1 Str and no proficiency (ie, a weakling), will fail while climbing a (unknotted) rope 50% of the time (I didn't differentiate between failing to make progress and falling, but they'll fail by 5 or more 25% of the time). A character with Athletics proficiency and +3 Str will still fail 20% of the time, which I already find annoyingly high. If it was any harder it would just be silly. I want players to be able to actually take advantage of verticality in the environment, not feel like the Three Stooges.

It comes down to my previous post, changing the baseline "measuring stick" and building DCs based on the things making the rolls (PCs), not a Narrative device that shouldn't even roll to begin with (NPCs).

Technically, I misspoke before, I don't think they're too low, at least not entirely. Just based on the previous topics standard--an Unskilled Commoner.

I think changing our basis of comparison between Easy/Medium/Hard/etc should be a Skilled Proficient Adventurer, as well as expanding the Passive Skill Checks system to everything.

My following replies assume this metric.



Base DC

DC 0- surface was specifically designed to be climbed on easily, or has large handholds and ledges to grab or stand on. Ladders, ship’s rigging, trees with large branches fairly close, book cases, or cliff faces with large slablike protrusions.


I would make the "minimum" DC 5, as our Standard at minimum passes that automatically without other modifier and/or disadvantage.

However, as not every PC with be our metric, it should still be possible to fail extremely simple climbs, just rare. Accidents happen after all.



DC 5- The surface has many small handholds or crevices to hold or stand on, or is narrow enough to reach one’s arms around. Trees with small or no branches at your level, fences, a knotted rope, cliff faces with cracks and small outcrops.


Other than bumping by +5 like I mentioned, most of these look fine.

(Fence--a short wooden fence around a pasture, or a 6ft wrought iron fence around a wealthy building/graveyard? I'd consider these different categories.)



DC 10- The surface has sparse protrusions, or parts one can grab with their hands but not stand on. The side of a house, an unknotted rope or pole, or a stone cliff face with occasional small outcrops.


Same +5 DC comment

Otherwise these seem good.

The house likely would have modifiers based on material.

Also, a few could probably bumped a category.


WHERE'S THE 15 TIER?!?!?



DC 20- The surface is uneven, with surface imperfections and small divots, but no protrusions to grab. A massive boulder or a wall of mortared stones, or the hide of a giant creature


This is where you start using somewhat accurate to my baseline changing.

A few could be lowered to 15, if it existed.

Also, climbing creatures is covered in the DMG under the "Expanded Combat Options" section, it's a contested Athletics check, so not covered by this project.



DC 30- The surface is perfectly smooth.


This should be flat out impossible, non-roll territory, assuming perfectly vertical and no modifiers.

If sloped enough like a slide, it can be modified to the nigh-impossible/very hard depending on degree of angle.



One can create handholds or crevices in a surface with the proper tools, like ice axes and crampons.


This likely falls in Tools modifying checks, or would just be Advantage.



This assumes a vertical surface, but if not apply one of the following:

Always start at DC 0 if the surface slopes more than 30 degrees from vertical away from the bottom

Subtract 10 if the surface slopes heavily away from the bottom (>30 degrees from vertical)

Subtract 5 if the surface slopes slightly away from the bottom (>15 degrees from vertical)

Add 5 if the surface slopes slightly over the bottom (>15 degrees from vertical)

Add 10 if the surface slopes heavily over the bottom (> 30 degrees from vertical). If the surface has easy handholds, like a ladder, then only add 5.

Add 15 if the surface is sloped more than 60 degrees from vertical over the bottom, including if they are holding on the bottom of a horizontal surface. If the surface has easy handholds, like a ladder, then only add 5. Surfaces of this slope with no handholds at all cannot be climbed.


This is a slippery slope. (Pun intended.). Massive numeric modifiers are dangerous for Bounded Accuracy, especially the +/- 10-15 ones. Most of the extremes are likely as easy as "Nigh Impossible with Disadvantage" and the only likely way to pull it off is a way to cancel the disadvantage, and have Bardic Inspiration, Guidance, AND roll as high as possible on most of the dice.




Situational modifiers- If one or more of the following apply, add a +2 to the Climb DC. If two or more of the following apply, add a +5 to the DC

-The surface is swaying, rocking, or otherwise unstable, like a rapidly moving creature, a swinging mast, a shaky bookcase or ladder, or a pile of unconnected objects.

-The surface is slippery.

-The surface is painful or harmful to touch, like sun-baked stone, or frigid ice. Do not apply this modifier if the climber has some means of preventing harm from the surface, like gloves or Protection From Energy.

-The climber is only trying to hold on to the surface, not trying to move.

The +/- 2 or 5 is as far as I would push modifiers, similar to Cover.

The rest, Advantage/Disadvantage as normal.

Hope this frames my earlier comment.

[Pex]

Knowing the abilities of a creature.

Intelligence (appropriate skill) check of DC 10 + creature's CR. Making the check lets you ask the DM one question about the creature. Some examples: you can ask what attack does it use most, what resistances does it have, what is its best saving throw - not the number just which ability score. For every 2 you exceed the DC you may ask another question. If the creature is an advanced version of itself and thus a higher CR, for example a bugbear chief instead of a bugbear, and the player makes the DC of the non-advanced creature but not the advanced creature, the information gained is for the non-advanced version but the character knows this creature is tougher.

Maybe someone can word this better.

[Mongobear]

Knowing the abilities of a creature.

Intelligence (appropriate skill) check of DC 10 + creature's CR. Making the check lets you ask the DM one question about the creature. Some examples: you can ask what attack does it use most, what resistances does it have, what is its best saving throw - not the number just which ability score. For every 2 you exceed the DC you may ask another question. If the creature is an advanced version of itself and thus a higher CR, for example a bugbear chief instead of a bugbear, and the player makes the DC of the non-advanced creature but not the advanced creature, the information gained is for the non-advanced version but the character knows this creature is tougher.

Maybe someone can word this better.

Would this be weaker, stronger, or on par with the BM Fighter's Know Your Enemy ability?

As long as this remains a fluff thing, I'm all for it, assuming the PC has prior knowledge of Bugbears existing, and wouldn't let it fly on Unique/Legendary monsters, like the Tarasque, or any of the named Devil's/Demons.

3.5w has a Feat for Knowledge skills that turned into a direct combat bonus, and was pretty broken, I don't want that again. Know special things about monsters and actually getting a benefit should be the Ranger's forte.

Also, change Favored Enemy to give Advantage on this roll if you selected it's type as a Favored Enemy option?

[AdAstra]

It comes down to my previous post, changing the baseline "measuring stick" and building DCs based on the things making the rolls (PCs), not a Narrative device that shouldn't even roll to begin with (NPCs).

Technically, I misspoke before, I don't think they're too low, at least not entirely. Just based on the previous topics standard--an Unskilled Commoner.

I think changing our basis of comparison between Easy/Medium/Hard/etc should be a Skilled Proficient Adventurer, as well as expanding the Passive Skill Checks system to everything.

My following replies assume this metric.

But, why should tasks that are trivial for commoners be more difficult for PCs? If your average grandmother in real life can climb ladders more reliably than a Level 1 Ranger with 10 Str (unless you allow acrobatics to climb) can in the game, then that creates some serious immersion-breaking. I know I would balk at a DM telling me to roll a check to climb a ladder in anything but a comedy game.



I would make the "minimum" DC 5, as our Standard at minimum passes that automatically without other modifier and/or disadvantage.

However, as not every PC with be our metric, it should still be possible to fail extremely simple climbs, just rare. Accidents happen after all.

See, I don't think that metric should apply. It doesn't make sense for a level 1 character with +3 in a stat and proficiency to be merely average. A Level 1 Barbarian with a maxed-out Athletics bonus is average?

IMO, +2 should be "decent" +4 or more should mean "good", +7 or more "expert", +10 or more should be "exceptional", and + 14 or more "master-level".

These roughly correspond with:

Decent- A character with +2 in a stat (implying some degree of focus on that stat). Level 17+ Bards will have this as their floor. Will beat a DC 15 about 40% of the time

Good- A level 1 character that puts some level of resources into a skill (+2 to a stat and proficiency). A character with a 20 in a stat will be slightly better than Good at all checks using that stat. Can never fail a DC 5 check, and a DC 15 check is a 50/50 for them.

Expert- A level 1 rogue, level 3 bard, or level 5 non-expertise character's best skill. You need proficiency or Jack of All Trades to get this, and even with proficiency you need at least a +1 in the stat. Can beat a DC 15 about 2/3 of the time

Exceptional- The just barely under what a character can have without expertise, or the worst a lvl 17+ can have with it. A Rogue or Bard can have this at level 5, those merely proficient will need until 13. Can never fail a DC 10 check, has a 55% chance to succeed on a DC 20, and the tipping point at which DC 30 is possible without buffs.

Master- Even at level 17+, requires both Expertise and at least +2 in a stat. A Rogues and Bards are almost here by level 9, and can just barely surpass it by level 13.

I feel that these are far better benchmarks to build skills off of.


Other than bumping by +5 like I mentioned, most of these look fine.

(Fence--a short wooden fence around a pasture, or a 6ft wrought iron fence around a wealthy building/graveyard? I'd consider these different categories.)

I think I'll move and clarify fences, yeah



Same +5 DC comment

Otherwise these seem good.

The house likely would have modifiers based on material.

Also, a few could probably bumped a category.


WHERE'S THE 15 TIER?!?!?

Could probably change some stuff around. I can think of very few homes that would significantly differ from this standard though.



This is where you start using somewhat accurate to my baseline changing.

A few could be lowered to 15, if it existed.

Also, climbing creatures is covered in the DMG under the "Expanded Combat Options" section, it's a contested Athletics check, so not covered by this project.

This assumes that the creature is not actively attempting to throw you off. It also of course assumes it's big enough to climb in the first place.



This should be flat out impossible, non-roll territory, assuming perfectly vertical and no modifiers.

If sloped enough like a slide, it can be modified to the nigh-impossible/very hard depending on degree of angle.

Possibly. It depends on whether you want superhuman feats at high level.



This likely falls in Tools modifying checks, or would just be Advantage.

Tool proficiencies aren't necessarily needed here (crampons are pretty intuitive and aren't covered by proficiency), and the advantage mechanic isn't granular enough for this. I don't think it's too complex, and removing it only trims like two sentences.



This is a slippery slope. (Pun intended.). Massive numeric modifiers are dangerous for Bounded Accuracy, especially the +/- 10-15 ones. Most of the extremes are likely as easy as "Nigh Impossible with Disadvantage" and the only likely way to pull it off is a way to cancel the disadvantage, and have Bardic Inspiration, Guidance, AND roll as high as possible on most of the dice.

That's kinda the point? They make things really hard because they should make things really hard. I did change them though




The +/- 2 or 5 is as far as I would push modifiers, similar to Cover.

The rest, Advantage/Disadvantage as normal.

Hope this frames my earlier comment.

[Amechra]

Honestly, I think an important thing to keep in mind is that the skill system naturally makes people seem incompetent.

Imagine for a second that you set DC 15 as your "moderate" difficulty. A starting PC with proficiency in an appropriate skill is going to have a 45% chance of failing that roll at best. And their chance of success only goes up by 5% every four levels (assuming no ASIs are spent boosting that ability score). Those aren't good odds, especially if you want your players to seem good at that kind of thing.

So before you start setting up DC tables, you're going to have to figure out what PCs should be able to do "effortlessly".



Another thing to keep in mind is that the tables should preclude asking for multiple successful rolls in a row. If you have a climbing table, that check should cover the entire climb. Because requiring multiple successful checks in sequence massively increases the difficulty in a non-obvious way (+5 bonus vs. DC 10 once is an 80% chance of success. +5 bonus vs. DC 10 twice is a 64% chance, or an effective +3 to the DC.)

[Kane0]

There isn’t going to be many, if any, universally agreed upon standard but sure i’ll give it a go.

DC 0: Force open an unlatched door
DC 5: Force open a damaged door
DC 10: Force open an unbarred wooden (standard) door
DC 15: Force open an unbarred stone/metal (reinforced) door
DC 20: Force open a barred wooden (standard) door
DC 25: Force open a barred stone/metal (reinforced) door
DC 30: Force open a magically sealed door

DC 0: Cross calm waters unclothed
DC 5: Cross calm waters clothed
DC 10: Cross calm waters burdened
DC 15: Cross rough waters unclothed
DC 20: Cross rough waters clothed
DC 25: Cross rough waters burdened
DC 30: Swim up a waterfall

DC 0: Treat wound (first aid)
DC 5: Determine time/cause of death
DC 10: Treat poison/disease
DC 15: Treat madness/severe injury
DC 20: Perform simple surgery
DC 25: Perform complex surgery
DC 30: Treat magical ailment

[diplomancer]

"Accidents happen after all"

Though this is true, what you should consider is "do accidents during this activity happen at least 5% of the time?" Because if they happen, say, only 0.1% (many accidents are less than that) of the time and you put it that they will happen 20% of the time (DC 5 for unskilled characters), silly things start to happen.

One other thing that would be useful, before starting to put the DCs in, is to define what constitutes "a challenge", either on its own or due to the present conditions, because, in 5e, if it's not a challenge, there's no roll, the character just does it.

The previous 2 paragraphs are actually saying the same thing, first from a mathematics perspective, 2nd from a game rules perspective. 1st paragraph explains why you should not roll if it's not a challenge.

[Anymage]

From a quick browse through the rules, official DCs:

DC 10 Strength(Athletics) check to clear a low obstacle when long jumping. "Low obstacle" means ~1/4 the jump's distance.

DC 10 Dexterity (Acrobatics) check to successfully land on your feet while long jumping, if you land on uneven terrain.

DC 15 Constitution save to resist a level of exhaustion when you only have access to half as much water as you'd normally drink.

DC 15 Constitution save to make headway when spending downtime recuperating.

DC 10 Wisdom(Medicine) check to stabilize a creature who has fallen to 0 HP.

DC 11 Constitution save to resist Filth Fever, which does map to real-world conditions that can arise from grossly unhygienic conditions.

DC 10 Wisdom(Perception) check to notice a tripwire or pit trap. A dart trap with well concealed holes raises the DC to 15.

P. 110-112, 244-245, and 254 in the DMG all give example DCs for various wilderness tasks and dealing with various minor complications.

[Tanarii]

Climbing DCs should start at "no roll" unless the climb is an "attempt to climb a sheer or slippery cliff, avoid hazards while scaling a wall" or "a slippery vertical surface or one with few handholds". That's the PHB guidelines for something even requiring a check at all.

Even if you jump to DC 10 to start (ie rolling the DMG advice to skip checks of DC 5), that's still a high bar for difficulty before you even start making checks

(Of course, I'm a rock climber IRL and I can tell you I'd fall off a slippery vertical surface or one with few handholds a lot more than 45% of the time. With rock shoes on. That's why I consider that a high bar for difficulty, ie a low DC. Or possibly my mental picture of "few handholds" is harsh because of that.)

[Mongobear]

But, why should tasks that are trivial for commoners be more difficult for PCs? If your average grandmother in real life can climb ladders more reliably than a Level 1 Ranger with 10 Str (unless you allow acrobatics to climb) can in the game, then that creates some serious immersion-breaking. I know I would balk at a DM telling me to roll a check to climb a ladder in anything but a comedy game.

I'm not trying to simulate RL. I'm trying to reframe skills be for Bounded Accuracy intuitively.

In this system, the grandmother doesn't matter, she is an NPC, and thus a tool of the DM that does exactly what said DM planned her to do. He doesn't roll every round to see her progress up or down, it's pre-programmed, and will only fall if it was planned for her to fall. Her climbing ability has no influence on that outcome, whether it's +0, +20, or -20.

Under my proposed changes, you wouldn't be rolling for skills often. You would have a Passive Score for all of them, which dictates how difficult of a DC you auto-pass during trivial/mundane routines. For this, most DC 5s are auto-passes regardless, unless you have an 8 in the relevant stat, and disadvantage from something (Passive Score there would be a 4), but it likely means you just slip or lose your footing a skin your knee, not plummet off the top and die.

You'd only touch the d20 when you're in trouble, or threat of failure is extreme.


See, I don't think that metric should apply. It doesn't make sense for a level 1 character with +3 in a stat and proficiency to be merely average. A Level 1 Barbarian with a maxed-out Athletics bonus is average?

IMO, +2 should be "decent" +4 or more should mean "good", +7 or more "expert", +10 or more should be "exceptional", and + 14 or more "master-level".

These roughly correspond with:

Decent- A character with +2 in a stat (implying some degree of focus on that stat). Level 17+ Bards will have this as their floor. Will beat a DC 15 about 40% of the time

Good- A level 1 character that puts some level of resources into a skill (+2 to a stat and proficiency). A character with a 20 in a stat will be slightly better than Good at all checks using that stat. Can never fail a DC 5 check, and a DC 15 check is a 50/50 for them.

Expert- A level 1 rogue, level 3 bard, or level 5 non-expertise character's best skill. You need proficiency or Jack of All Trades to get this, and even with proficiency you need at least a +1 in the stat. Can beat a DC 15 about 2/3 of the time

Exceptional- The just barely under what a character can have without expertise, or the worst a lvl 17+ can have with it. A Rogue or Bard can have this at level 5, those merely proficient will need until 13. Can never fail a DC 10 check, has a 55% chance to succeed on a DC 20, and the tipping point at which DC 30 is possible without buffs.

Master- Even at level 17+, requires both Expertise and at least +2 in a stat. A Rogues and Bards are almost here by level 9, and can just barely surpass it by level 13.

I feel that these are far better benchmarks to build skills off of.

For an Adventurer, yes I consider a +5 average, since that's the lowest you're gonna have for a character who will be climbing things often for the purposes of setting these DCs.

They're the exceptional members of society, I'm willing to bet the average adventurer trying to Climb things is pretty strong and knows what he's doing, not a weakling that's scared of heights.

Alternatively, I could balance my estimates by figuring out every possible Athletics bonus possible for every level, and average those, but that will likely drive the DCs higher.


I think I'll move and clarify fences, yeah

Could probably change some stuff around. I can think of very few homes that would significantly differ from this standard though.

I only bring it up as climbing a log cabin is measurably easier than climbing smooth stone, or bricks. But this could be covered by the +/- 2/5 stuff later. Base DC of "House' is X +/- 2/5 based on material.

This assumes that the creature is not actively attempting to throw you off. It also of course assumes it's big enough to climb in the first place.

By the DMG, it only needs to be one size larger than the climber. This is a very niche situation though, so no idea where to go with it.

RAW if it doesn't care, you auto-pass though.


Possibly. It depends on whether you want superhuman feats at high level.

Like I mentioned previously, I'd consider level 20 characters the Hawkeye, Black Widow, and Batman's of Adventurers. Whiles it's likely inconceivable for regular Humans, people chucking Reality Warping magic around, or cutting dragons I half don't really need to worry about climbing ladders anymore.


Tool proficiencies aren't necessarily needed here (crampons are pretty intuitive and aren't covered by proficiency), and the advantage mechanic isn't granular enough for this. I don't think it's too complex, and removing it only trims like two sentences.

That's kinda the point? They make things really hard because they should make things really hard. I did change them though

I only bring it up because that is a HUGE jump from Bounded Accuracy, and instead of and insane modifiers, we could list list "extremely slanted wall" on at the DC 25 spot, instead of making a sub-table for slopes of angles.

I'm trying to keep this within preconceived mechanics and modifiers of the system, unless you want to also add a "+30 to X Skill" spell? Or alter Spider Climb to just give +30 to Athletics when Climbing things.



Honestly, I think an important thing to keep in mind is that the skill system naturally makes people seem incompetent.

Imagine for a second that you set DC 15 as your "moderate" difficulty. A starting PC with proficiency in an appropriate skill is going to have a 45% chance of failing that roll at best. And their chance of success only goes up by 5% every four levels (assuming no ASIs are spent boosting that ability score). Those aren't good odds, especially if you want your players to seem good at that kind of thing.

So before you start setting up DC tables, you're going to have to figure out what PCs should be able to do "effortlessly".

That's a good point, as under a d20 system, the odds jump by 5% increments, so the likelihood of any given outcome is vastly skewed. It's a symptom of the game that we will have to live with.



Another thing to keep in mind is that the tables should preclude asking for multiple successful rolls in a row. If you have a climbing table, that check should cover the entire climb. Because requiring multiple successful checks in sequence massively increases the difficulty in a non-obvious way (+5 bonus vs. DC 10 once is an 80% chance of success. +5 bonus vs. DC 10 twice is a 64% chance, or an effective +3 to the DC.)

I wouldn't/don't ask for rechecks unless the situation changes. If you start climbing a 500ft cliff, you're fine with one roll, (assuming proper effort and prep, itd be Passive anyways) but if a storm blows in suddenly, I'm asking for a new roll.


"Accidents happen after all"

Though this is true, what you should consider is "do accidents during this activity happen at least 5% of the time?" Because if they happen, say, only 0.1% (many accidents are less than that) of the time and you put it that they will happen 20% of the time (DC 5 for unskilled characters), silly things start to happen.

This is part of the problem of d20 stuff like i said earlier. We will never get rid of this, but hopefully with my proposed Passive alteration, it'll happen much less often, in all but the most extreme circumstances.

One other thing that would be useful, before starting to put the DCs in, is to define what constitutes "a challenge", either on its own or due to the present conditions, because, in 5e, if it's not a challenge, there's no roll, the character just does it.

This is a good point. As you will only need to make a Roll when the situation is actually Challenging. You'd use a Passive check if it is trivial/routine.

I would say a Challenge would be "Any attempt to complete a task which isn't normal, trivial, or routine while under pressure and the threat of failure poses real a real consequence."

How does that sound?

The previous 2 paragraphs are actually saying the same thing, first from a mathematics perspective, 2nd from a game rules perspective. 1st paragraph explains why you should not roll if it's not a challenge.

I agree with no challenge = no roll


Climbing DCs should start at "no roll" unless the climb is an "attempt to climb a sheer or slippery cliff, avoid hazards while scaling a wall" or "a slippery vertical surface or one with few handholds". That's the PHB guidelines for something even requiring a check at all.

Technically they do start at 0, in that ourmeasuring stick cannot go below that number, short of extreme circumstances, using the idea I'm proposing. Everything will be "DC 0" technically, if it is trivia/routine.

Even if you jump to DC 10 to start (ie rolling the DMG advice to skip checks of DC 5), that's still a high bar for difficulty before you even start making checks

(Of course, I'm a rock climber IRL and I can tell you I'd fall off a slippery vertical surface or one with few handholds a lot more than 45% of the time. With rock shoes on. That's why I consider that a high bar for difficulty, ie a low DC. Or possibly my mental picture of "few handholds" is harsh because of that.)


In a way, you'd be similar to our benchmark. A Skilled and we'll trained 'adventurer'.

In your climbing, if you were taking your time, and planned your route at every step, what's the chances you'd lose your footing and slip? What about a catastrophic failure where you'd completely come off the Rock and be dangling by your safety ropes?

I think we will also eventually need a Degree of Failure table as well, as failing a Climb check by 1 is a lot worse than failing by 12.

[Spiritchaser]

Climbing DCs should start at "no roll" unless the climb is an "attempt to climb a sheer or slippery cliff, avoid hazards while scaling a wall" or "a slippery vertical surface or one with few handholds". That's the PHB guidelines for something even requiring a check at all.

Even if you jump to DC 10 to start (ie rolling the DMG advice to skip checks of DC 5), that's still a high bar for difficulty before you even start making checks

(Of course, I'm a rock climber IRL and I can tell you I'd fall off a slippery vertical surface or one with few handholds a lot more than 45% of the time. With rock shoes on. That's why I consider that a high bar for difficulty, ie a low DC. Or possibly my mental picture of "few handholds" is harsh because of that.)


Out of curiosity:

Would you modify climbing DC based on weight carried?

I don’t... Though I suppose I would in extreme cases, because it slows things down and the players don’t consider it a terribly interesting story element.

[AdAstra]

If you’re trying to make adventurers feel competent and heroic, it’s probably not a good idea to make them more likely to fail things that NPCs can do easily. If your level 1 fighter who invested into Athletics fails to climb the equivalent of a children’s rock wall, chances are they’re going to think “guess climbing’s just arbitrarily hard in this game, better not do it”. At that point the players might be better off hiring random people off the street to do the climbing for them, like having them climb the cliff and throw down a knotted rope. Will the hirelings have to make checks now that the PCs are telling them what to do? Will they just autofail? Either way it’s going to just raise further questions. Overall this just feels like making things harder on the PCs for the sake of making things difficult, not for any in-fiction reason. Why shouldn’t the people with Athletics be good at climbing? Why should people without it be absolutely terrible at it? Even from a gameplay perspective it just seems unfun.

Also climbing isn’t something that only people good at climbing will need to attempt. It’s not Arcana or History. If the party’s running away from goblins and comes across a climbable wall, anyone without spider climb or whatever is going to have to make the check, not just one. Climbing is useful for any character, so making it so that you have to actively invest in it to not suck basically removes it from the toolkit for a lot of them.

The whole point of the DC 0 table is to illustrate when a roll is not needed. Even if there are wolves baying at their feet, you can sure bet most people can still climb a ladder. The question at that point becomes one of speed or additional challenges presented, such as a storm or the wolves jostling the ladder.

[stoutstien]

First off, i like the premise of this, I had a thread a while back talking about a similar idea:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?583358-skill-tricks-for-5E

The idea was to have a list of ability/skill modifiers criteria that a player could reference to know what they could do without a role as they progressed.

An other thing I started doing is talking to each table before campaign starts to get a general idea of what a lv 1 character represents. using pop culture references, is a lv 1 character behaving at a Captain America or Batman status or is that reserved for higher tiers? The DCs should reflect this overall question if it's going to be congruent. This is more important than writing out a bunch of individual DC charts.


Since then I've come to realize that mathematically, ability checks don't follow bounded accuracy. The static bonuses are to varied so a DM is stuck between making DC scale with the party (booo!) Or Having a scale start with higher thresholds which means characters without access to double proficiency and/or other miscellaneous static bonuses are unable from succeeding at checks from upper part of the scale.(also boo!)

A sliding scale of degrees of success and failure vs a flat pass/fail helps alleviate some of the issue but I'm working on a way to get the checks to work with the idea of bounded accuracy. Probably going to be a long process.

[Tanarii]

Moonbear, your post is too long to quote to answer just the last part, but the answer is:

I've only ever climbed a wet or slippery climb with huge ledges and handholds, which I've done a few time, and they were harrowing experiences moving at a lot less than half speed. I suffered 0 catastrophic failures.

When I climb something with "few" handholds my catastrophic failure rate is 100%. In my case, that's currently a v3 bouldering problem or a 5.10c top rope climb. One step down from those (v2 or 5.10b) is probably 50%, and two steps down (v1 or 5.10a) is 0% unless I'm really tired.

The problem is it doesn't really translate well into a game mechanic. Just a small difference in practice, and more importantly body strength to body weight ratio, makes a huge difference in climbing capability. So real world guidelines aren't necessarily helpful, other than 'when would you start making a check'.

And the answer for that for most people is you start making a catastrophic failure check at v0 (bouldering) or 5.9 (top rope route). Those might be about DC 5 unless you're very over weight. Of possibly DC 0 for first 15ft, increasing by as much as 5 every 15ft, would also be appropriate.


Out of curiosity:

Would you modify climbing DC based on weight carried?
Good point. Yes, absolutely it should. I mostly sport climb top rope, so harness with light gear attached, so everything above is based off that. I rappel with a heavy pack all the time (second rope, webbing, water, personal stuff) and that's resulted slipping and hurting myself superficially (usually shins) several times as I went over the lip. Although I've never let go of the rope as a result. :smallamused:

But I've also done a full day mountain climbing with a rucksack, and it is considerably different and more difficult. OTOH I don't usually do anything hard enough to risk catastrophic failure when carrying a pack, just unable to proceed and find a different route.

I've never done ice climbing, but my father and brother have, and they wear heavy gear and bigger packs, crampons, and ice axes. Again a different situation.

Edit: I suffer from a common problem for abstracting a rule in the case of climbing. If I were to try and design a rule or table, it would almost certainly be massively over-engineered and attempting to simulate far too much. Just as folks who have done archery or martial arts or weapon fighting tend to do with combat. :smallamused:

I recognize that and my overall feedback is probably: for an adventurer in gear, start making checks for catastrophic failure at DC 5 for a vertical surface with plentiful & large handholds, with a check every turn of movement, and skip the check unless it's high stress per the DMG advice. Make it DC 10 (easy) if handholds are not very large and abundant for the entire turns worth of climbing. That's your 'start point'. That's basically what the PHB says anyway.

[Mongobear]

*bunch of rock-climbing jargon i don't understand*


See, this is why tables for DC suggestions are needed, imo. Short of "Rope" I have literally no idea what anything you just said means. To me, it's all impossible.

This whole time, when I pictured rock-climbing, I thought you were talking about the indoor walls with the colored nubbs like on American Gladiators.

Speaking of which, American Gladiators is a good example of "climbing under duress". I'm sure all of those contestants would have no trouble scaling the wall given sufficient time, but when a prize is on the line for the fastest speed, AND you have BLADE chasing after you trying to throw you off the Wall, you're rolling checks the whole time and there's a real consequence of failure. The wall didn't get harder to Climb, the situation changes.

[Mongobear]

Here's a basic idea of what I'm thinking.

1) Keep the current v.easy/easy/medium/etc table breakdowns for each step.

2) 5 becomes the "auto-pass/no roll" DC, as our measuring stick cannot fail without extreme penalties/disadvantage.

3) Non-Contested skill checks become an expansion of the Passive Skills. ALL skills made without immediate threat of danger/consequence or that are considered Routine can use your Passive Score, if it's high enough.

4) There will be a small number of variables to modify DCs, similar to how Cover works for AC, except that it can work as a bonus or penalty.

Does anyone see a problem with this?

EDIT - Also, I feel people misunderstood something about what I said earlier. NPC skill modifiers become largely irrelevant, outside of ones used for contests, which aren't affected by this.

As stated, NPCs are a narrative device, they don't need to roll routine checks because they do exactly what the DM wants they do. (Could you imagine entering a busy city for the first time, asking what the citizens are up to, and sitting there for 30 minutes as the DM rolls every skill being performed by every NPC? No, they're just doing it.)

[Spiritchaser]

Moonbear, your post is too long to quote to answer just the last part, but the answer is:

I've only ever climbed a wet or slippery climb with huge ledges and handholds, which I've done a few time, and they were harrowing experiences moving at a lot less than half speed. I suffered 0 catastrophic failures.

When I climb something with "few" handholds my catastrophic failure rate is 100%. In my case, that's currently a v3 bouldering problem or a 5.10c top rope climb. One step down from those (v2 or 5.10b) is probably 50%, and two steps down (v1 or 5.10a) is 0% unless I'm really tired.

The problem is it doesn't really translate well into a game mechanic. Just a small difference in practice, and more importantly body strength to body weight ratio, makes a huge difference in climbing capability. So real world guidelines aren't necessarily helpful, other than 'when would you start making a check'.

And the answer for that for most people is you start making a catastrophic failure check at v0 (bouldering) or 5.9 (top rope route). Those might be about DC 5 unless you're very over weight. Of possibly DC 0 for first 15ft, increasing by as much as 5 every 15ft, would also be appropriate.


Good point. Yes, absolutely it should. I mostly sport climb top rope, so harness with light gear attached, so everything above is based off that. I rappel with a heavy pack all the time (second rope, webbing, water, personal stuff) and that's resulted slipping and hurting myself superficially (usually shins) several times as I went over the lip. Although I've never let go of the rope as a result. :smallamused:

But I've also done a full day mountain climbing with a rucksack, and it is considerably different and more difficult. OTOH I don't usually do anything hard enough to risk catastrophic failure when carrying a pack, just unable to proceed and find a different route.

I've never done ice climbing, but my father and brother have, and they wear heavy gear and bigger packs, crampons, and ice axes. Again a different situation.

Edit: I suffer from a common problem for abstracting a rule in the case of climbing. If I were to try and design a rule or table, it would almost certainly be massively over-engineered and attempting to simulate far too much. Just as folks who have done archery or martial arts or weapon fighting tend to do with combat. :smallamused:

I recognize that and my overall feedback is probably: for an adventurer in gear, start making checks for catastrophic failure at DC 5 for a vertical surface with plentiful & large handholds, with a check every turn of movement, and skip the check unless it's high stress per the DMG advice. Make it DC 10 (easy) if handholds are not very large and abundant for the entire turns worth of climbing. That's your 'start point'. That's basically what the PHB says anyway.

I think there also has to be the question of fun.

One campaign I DM contains a friend who I’ve climbed with on and off for 20 years, his wife who is perfectly comfortable on a 5.10a in the gym with a fighting chance at a 5.10c on an inspired day and their son who is starting in to competitive climbing and will pass me in ability rather soon, if he has not done so already. He’s certainly better at lunatic fringe dynos and deadpoints... though he might be easing off those after a tendon injury.

Even in that crowd, I do not feel it would benefit the game to spend TOO much time dwelling on the details.

I have broken climbs down into different sections and thrown in the odd Dex and con check, but I’m not sure how much it really added. I think that was very nearly a failed experiment.

I think it’s more important to tell a compelling story about the climb, as long as the DC is within a few points, that’s probably ok.

So TLDR, the simpler the climbing chart can be, the better.

Also: I’m not sure that you’re missing much not ice climbing.

High objective hazard, lots more to buy, and if you freeze your hands... DC 30 wis check to not scream and DC 20 con check to not throw up when they Thaw out.

[Tanarii]

See, this is why tables for DC suggestions are needed, imo. Short of "Rope" I have literally no idea what anything you just said means. To me, it's all impossible.5.9 is large handholds and footholds, well spaced for a person who of average height to use, no overhang and possibly slightly leaning away from you. An average strength climber with no previous experience who isn't very scared of heights can climb a 20ft-ish climb like that at least 80% of the time, so DC5 feels right, with waiving the checks when no stress and plenty of time. Rope is there just in case. V0 is the same-ish but less than 10ft of height, because you don't have a rope.

So basically, I'd advocate starting at DC10 for a character climbing with gear for anything harder than that, especially with a lack of rock shoes. Brick and mortar wall with mortar set back enough you can jam fingers and shoes (barely) into, with a pack on? Yeah that'd be DC 10 to climb 15ft in a round IMO.


This whole time, when I pictured rock-climbing, I thought you were talking about the indoor walls with the colored nubbs like on American Gladiators.Both indoor and outdoor. Outdoor we build anchors at the top of the climb and rappel down, then climb a bunch of times.


Speaking of which, American Gladiators is a good example of "climbing under duress". I'm sure all of those contestants would have no trouble scaling the wall given sufficient time, but when a prize is on the line for the fastest speed, AND you have BLADE chasing after you trying to throw you off the Wall, you're rolling checks the whole time and there's a real consequence of failure. The wall didn't get harder to Climb, the situation changes.Absolutely, and a check under those circumstances is well within PHB guidelines even with plentiful hand and foot holds.

[AdAstra]

Tanarii I’m not sure if you have already done so, but I would love your feedback on my proposed climb DC table at the top of the thread. It assumes a slightly more fantastical perspective of climbing, but still meant to be fairly grounded in reality at least at the lower end. It’s been revised a bunch, so even if you’ve looked through it I’d appreciate it immensely if you checked it again.

[Tanarii]

Missed you had edited to add all that. It looks pretty good to me. I'd make a few changes myself:
- change DC 0 to "no check".
- add a qualifier to DC 5: only check if in combat or falling risks significant harm / death
- a loose unknotted hemp rope with no wall to brace against should probably be DC 10, and DC 5 with a wall to brace against. More for 'fun' purposes than any other.
- an overhang of 30+ degrees should be +5 even with plentiful handholds. Of 60+ degrees should be +10.
- situational modifier: disadvantage if you're being attacked. Defining that would be problematic in a turn based system.

Possible alternative: make an immediate check at disadvantage or +5 DC if you take any HP damage. Personally I'd go with +5 DC instead of disadvantage. It should make it possible to fall when previously there was no check.

[Mongobear]

5.9 is large handholds and footholds, well spaced for a person who of average height to use, no overhang and possibly slightly leaning away from you. An average strength climber with no previous experience who isn't very scared of heights can climb a 20ft-ish climb like that at least 80% of the time, so DC5 feels right, with waiving the checks when no stress and plenty of time. Rope is there just in case. V0 is the same-ish but less than 10ft of height, because you don't have a rope.


How often do people that have no idea what they're doing and no physical ability/out of shape try climbing?

What do you think of changing the baseline measuring stick to a "skilled professional" at their lowest level. Someone who has been trained and built for the task, but at the earliest level of ability?

(I assume rock climbing has a student/teacher dichotomy, sorta like learning to fly a plane?)



So basically, I'd advocate starting at DC10 for a character climbing with gear for anything harder than that, especially with a lack of rock shoes. Brick and mortar wall with mortar set back enough you can jam fingers and shoes (barely) into, with a pack on? Yeah that'd be DC 10 to climb 15ft in a round IMO.


Do you mean DC 15 for the brick? In my eyes, I could reasonably assume an actual "rock climbing wall" like on Gladiators to be easier than climbing a brick wall.



Both indoor and outdoor. Outdoor we build anchors at the top of the climb and rappel down, then climb a bunch of times.


I assume there's no natural walls with the perfect hand/foot holds like a gym wall? Do you happen to have a picture of these sorts of walls, preferably of the outdoor/natural variety?

(Again, I'm making an assumption that rock climbers have a system to rate a surface, like Rapids for kayakers/rafters.)



Absolutely, and a check under those circumstances is well within PHB guidelines even with plentiful hand and foot holds.


Well within the guidelines I don't doubt. What I'm questioning here is how are we (the unskilled/unknowing DN that has never climbed these sorts of surfaces) supposed to know what DC to assign?

Having a frame of reference for this via an experienced Climber is very useful, but also shows why Examples are needed.

EDIT - In a previous statement, you mentioned a kid of a friend, or your son (don't recall atm) who was naturally skilled at this, and in certain areas, better than you. Likely bypassing your ability within a year or two.

Would you say this relationship is a good example of a level 1 Adventurer(the Kid) showing signs of skill that you (a level 5 adventurer) can already tell will bypass your ability given time?

[Pex]

Would this be weaker, stronger, or on par with the BM Fighter's Know Your Enemy ability?

As long as this remains a fluff thing, I'm all for it, assuming the PC has prior knowledge of Bugbears existing, and wouldn't let it fly on Unique/Legendary monsters, like the Tarasque, or any of the named Devil's/Demons.

3.5w has a Feat for Knowledge skills that turned into a direct combat bonus, and was pretty broken, I don't want that again. Know special things about monsters and actually getting a benefit should be the Ranger's forte.

Also, change Favored Enemy to give Advantage on this roll if you selected it's type as a Favored Enemy option?

In comparison to Know Your Enemy the fighter gets the information automatically without rolling.

I agree this doesn't give the character any math bonuses. The information is valuable enough to facilitate combat tactics.

Favored Enemy granting advantage makes sense. I'm inclined to give a Fighter with Know Your Enemy advantage too if he makes the check after using the ability.

[AdAstra]

Missed you had edited to add all that. It looks pretty good to me. I'd make a few changes myself:
- change DC 0 to "no check".
- add a qualifier to DC 5: only check if in combat or falling risks significant harm / death
- a loose unknotted hemp rope with no wall to brace against should probably be DC 10, and DC 5 with a wall to brace against. More for 'fun' purposes than any other.
- an overhang of 30+ degrees should be +5 even with plentiful handholds. Of 60+ degrees should be +10.
- situational modifier: disadvantage if you're being attacked. Defining that would be problematic in a turn based system.

Possible alternative: make an immediate check at disadvantage or +5 DC if you take any HP damage. Personally I'd go with +5 DC instead of disadvantage. It should make it possible to fall when previously there was no check.

-The reason why I chose DC 0 is because the modifiers could result in a check being required. I'll probably clarify that if the DC is 0 or below, a check should be unnecessary for PCs.

-That's part of why I added the advantage for moving slowly (5 ft. per turn). It feels slightly less gamist, and has an objective metric to use rather than "in danger". Chances are if you're climbing in combat or a dangerous situation, you'll want to go faster than 5 feet a turn, 10 feet if you ready your action to move another 5 as a reaction. Will also close that latter loophole. Changed it to a -5 to the DC instead, added that you can't move outside your turn.

-Yeah, the rope thing makes sense, and fits the difficulty curve better.

-I think it's probably fine to use the 3e way of just requiring another check at the DC +5. Maybe a limit on how many times you can be forced to make the check to prevent it from being too punishing.

-Yeah I'll remove the caveats for easy handholds, it's too fiddly. Just a simple +2/5/10 for overhang, -2/5/10 for slope. Just find DC 10 for moving on a horizontal ladder a bit weird, but I can live with that.

Oof, so many changes. What does everyone think?

[Mongobear]

A few things I've changed my stance on somewhat, since discussing this with a few DM friends today.

The Passive checks probably don't need to be forced upon this project at first. I should "pick a battle" and focus on it for now, which, atm, will be designing the tables for DCs as well as getting a unified metric we use to gauge the difficulty label. I still think labels based on a 1st level Adventurer with a +5 modifier is the way to go, because of my statements about NPCs as Narrative Devices earlier. I can persue the Passive stuff on my own time.



-I think it's probably fine to use the 3e way of just requiring another check at the DC +5. Maybe a limit on how many times you can be forced to make the check to prevent it from being too punishing.

IMO, only ask for rechecks if the situation changes. Ex--"Climbing under fire by Archers" is DC 15, only change the DC if something notable changes. The wall could get steeper, another Archer could appear, you could reach a rope/tapestry to help brace yourself, each modified the difficulty.

-Yeah I'll remove the caveats for easy handholds, it's too fiddly. Just a simple +2/5/10 for overhang, -2/5/10 for slope. Just find DC 10 for moving on a horizontal ladder a bit weird, but I can live with that.

A horizontal sounds like a variant of Climbing. Either a Dexterity(Athletics) or Dex(Acrobatics) check. Unless you mean dangling like monkey bars? That's considerably more difficult, as you are not only climbing, but also supporting your entire weight with just your hand/arm strength.

Oof, so many changes. What does everyone think?

I think it's in the right track. Dropping so much of the fiddly modifiers will help the design. And we get get plenty of detail variations by spreading out 2-5 examples for each DC tier.

[Lyracian]

NOTE - This topic is aimed at those of us that actually want something like this. It is not asking whether it's needed, that is the purpose of the thread that spawned this. Please direct any "5e is fine, this is unneeded" discussion to the parent thread.

Suggestions are welcome to develop this into a fully formed system.

Would this thread help - http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?536749-5e-Ability-Skill-and-Tool-Use-DCs

[Mongobear]

Would this thread help - http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?536749-5e-Ability-Skill-and-Tool-Use-DCs

Actually, yes.

That's useful to perhaps base the tables on, and it looks like the OP and main contributors used a metric of a 1st level character as well.

I may borrow some/most of these as a launching point.

[diplomancer]

I mentioned on the other thread one other thing that could be considered, the fact that, for some challenges, being skilled matters more than for others. I feel that this is VERY much a DM adjudication thing, but I mentioned how DM's might tinker with advantage/disadvantage, automatic success/failure, to make this work.

A lot of tools proficiencies should be more of an automatic success/failure than a skill roll. The skill roll can determine how well performed the task is, not whether it's performed or not. A skilled blacksmith makes horseshoes without a meaningful chance of failure. Someone who's never been inside a forge does not even know where to start. I believe that Xanathar's crafting rules make this explicit. Languages also work that way, if you don't speak Orc you can't try to speak Orc (you can make a performance check to pantomime something to communicate with an orc, but that's a different thing).

For skill checks that you want to give a greater weight to knowing the skill, DMs can use this scale:
up to +x - automatic failure
from +x to +y- roll with disadvantage
from +y to +w- roll normally
from +w to +z - roll with advantage
more than +z - automatic success

This is very much a tentative idea, it's more like one tool that the DM can use if he wants to emphasize skills, and wants to model things with more mathematical precision, than something that is necessary to play the game, the game will work out fine without this granularity. All the different rankings are optional, so a DM can say just "disadvantage without the skill, regular roll with the skill" if the difference is not so great.

[djreynolds]

Tanarii makes climbing sound like it should be... a class. Or at the very least a feat you would select.

AFB, are there climbing tools in 5E?

I think the designers of 5E need to create a supplement for those players that want more detail and excitement out of the skills pillar.

And I think this is where 5E gets some backlash from other gamers playing 3.5 and such, its the details... be it weapons or skills.

Unfortunately for me, the skills pillar is a lackluster part of the game we just talk through and get back to the story.

[Tanarii]

How often do people that have no idea what they're doing and no physical ability/out of shape try climbing?All the time! Most out of shape people would probably be below Str 8 though, in D&D terms.


What do you think of changing the baseline measuring stick to a "skilled professional" at their lowest level. Someone who has been trained and built for the task, but at the earliest level of ability?I prefer to think about ability score +0 modifiers, a typical commoner. Because PCs with +0 mod should still be making checks. They shouldn't be afraid to try anything risky.

If you mean +0 for a PC should be better than +0 for a Commoner, I'm not sure I agree with that sentiment. I mean, I feel you should only be able to make a check at all if your PC have requisite capability. But that tends to come into play more with knowledge checks than anything else.


Do you mean DC 15 for the brick? In my eyes, I could reasonably assume an actual "rock climbing wall" like on Gladiators to be easier than climbing a brick wall.I was thinking of one with large gaps in between bricks, which is what I've fooled around with, enough so you can jam your shoes in a bit. I'm guessing that's not what you're envisioning.


I assume there's no natural walls with the perfect hand/foot holds like a gym wall? Do you happen to have a picture of these sorts of walls, preferably of the outdoor/natural variety?Natural rock often has good holds. They're just not color coded for your convenience.

You can see some pics of Mozart wall at Stoney Point in this link, near the bottom. The person in the purple shirt is on a 5.9, same with the person in the yellow shirt. The rope to the right is also a 5.9. REI classes regularly takes first time climbers to this wall. I've run people with no experience who aren't in great shape up it a bunch of times myself. They can almost always complete at least one climb.
(I just googled Stoney Point Mozart to find this, I don't know the people involved.)
https://allowingmyself.com/2014/09/22/2435/

[NNescio]

Tanarii makes climbing sound like it should be... a class. Or at the very least a feat you would select.

AFB, are there climbing tools in 5E? (...)

Pitons and rope?

[AdAstra]

Pitons and rope?

Not to mention the Climber’s Kit, which specifically talks about what you can do with it, ie secure yourself from falls with pitons connected to your harness with ropes.

[djreynolds]

I'd like to see an adventure, even if homebrewed, that really delved into skills and exploration.

I think it would be cool where half the adventure was climbing an ice cliff somewhere. Just surviving and finding food.

I think if adventures made more of an effort to really make exploration and travel more inclusive it would stop being a hand-wave at tables.

After reading all this rock climbing stuff, it sounds pretty cool and I think someone could design an adventure where skill/travel/exploration is as exciting as combat.

Maybe hand holds require a sleight of hand check, and so much climbing can force exhaustion.

Its funny, but sometimes stuff in game, makes players want to try it for real.

Now its archery and rock climbing on my list of stuff to do IRL.

And I think skills have to become more complex in 5E, 5E has to grow and evolve.

Climbing obviously from the conversation cannot be just strength anymore, I think someone good at climbing could break it up where at certain points during a long climb you might require an intelligence (nature) check to judge "hand-holds" and then a dexterity(sleight-of-hand) check to actually squeeze your hand in there. And wisdom (perception) to see the hand hold in the first place

And 5E needs climbing tools "proficiency" to make it more realistic.

Obviously spellcasters can make stuff easier, but spells don't last all that long actually and flying in the cold or desert heat could force some concentration checks. Getting buffeted by high winds or blinded by the sun can cause a concentration check... that way spell can't always solve everything

The designer have done a good job, but skills usage needs to be more engaging.

Like hire a rock climber like Bear Grylls or even someone on the forum to write out a scenario that isn't just an athletics' check.

And I will try out rock climbing and archery (not at the same time, I can barely type).... if I break something... it y'alls fault

[stoutstien]

A few things I've changed my stance on somewhat, since discussing this with a few DM friends today.

The Passive checks probably don't need to be forced upon this project at first. I should "pick a battle" and focus on it for now, which, atm, will be designing the tables for DCs as well as getting a unified metric we use to gauge the difficulty label. I still think labels based on a 1st level Adventurer with a +5 modifier is the way to go, because of my statements about NPCs as Narrative Devices earlier. I can persue the Passive stuff on my own time.



I think it's in the right track. Dropping so much of the fiddly modifiers will help the design. And we get get plenty of detail variations by spreading out 2-5 examples for each DC tier.

Passive checks can work quite well in this. A ability check based on knowledge would be a good example of where passive makes alot more sense. Passive insight could be a gut feeling of sort.

The table being based at +5 for a level one character is a tad rough. The only way a players will have that is by min/maxing. Nothing wrong with it in itself but it would be like setting AC of NPCs based on everyone having the archery fighting style.

I'd suggest setting the DC only using the ability modifiers and not adding proficiency to it. I want my players to make choices and actions based on what they would do and not just picking options off a list. That's why my list are more alone the lines of what a player can expect to do without a check at certain + modifier points.

Seeing we are using climbing:
+0 strength mod - can climb without risk as long as you have adequate time and the surface is free of hazards such as ice or high winds.

+1 strength mod - can preform a standing jump from one vertical surface to another as long as they are both free of hazards.

+2 strength mod - can climb with one hand. The other hand can used to hold an object or use the help another climb.

+3 strength mod - you can climb even while hauling large or unwieldily objects such as chests or even a creature.

+4 strength mod - natural hazards are no longer a concern to you.

+5 strength mod - each of your fingers are stronger than most men's arms. If you are knocked off a surface you can stop your fall as long as there is an adequate surface to grab.

[Segev]

My suggestion would be, as a starting point (and because this is really all I'm looking for), to develop a chart that looked like the following:

Intelligence
Investigation
Easy: Finding your own keys when you last had them upon entering the building you're still in (assuming nobody stole them).
Medium: Recognizing that the handwriting in the journal changes after a certain date.
Hard: Determining that one of the topiaries in the lush garden is actually made of deadwood with artificial leaves made of silk.
Nigh Impossible: Beating Sherlock Holmes to the solution of a caper with nothing but what Sir Arthur Conan Doyle presents to the audience to see before Sherlock himself reveals the evidence only he knew existed before the big reveal.

Have that for each Ability and Skill.

No, I don't think my examples are particularly good. But I think having something ilke that for each ability+skill for each difficulty category would go a long way, and serve as a solid basis for the more detailed work some others desire.

[Mongobear]

No, I don't think my examples are particularly good. But I think having something ilke that for each ability+skill for each difficulty category would go a long way, and serve as a solid basis for the more detailed work some others desire.


This is sorta my goal. Maybe a bit more expansive since several skills encompass multiple uses, and would need an example for each.

The previously linked thread from several years ago is actually quite good at this.

[diplomancer]

My suggestion would be, as a starting point (and because this is really all I'm looking for), to develop a chart that looked like the following:

Intelligence
Investigation
Easy: Finding your own keys when you last had them upon entering the building you're still in (assuming nobody stole them).
Medium: Recognizing that the handwriting in the journal changes after a certain date.
Hard: Determining that one of the topiaries in the lush garden is actually made of deadwood with artificial leaves made of silk.
Nigh Impossible: Beating Sherlock Holmes to the solution of a caper with nothing but what Sir Arthur Conan Doyle presents to the audience to see before Sherlock himself reveals the evidence only he knew existed before the big reveal.

Have that for each Ability and Skill.

No, I don't think my examples are particularly good. But I think having something ilke that for each ability+skill for each difficulty category would go a long way, and serve as a solid basis for the more detailed work some others desire.

To me finding keys is far harder than noticing the handwriting has changed :)

but I don't think either of them are actually challenges unless there is some time constraint (or unless the handwritings were unusually similar, which probably means that the 2nd writer was trying to mimic the 1st writer, which makes it a contested roll, Int (investigation) vs Int (forgery kit)

[Mongobear]

To me finding keys is far harder than noticing the handwriting has changed :)

but I don't think either of them are actually challenges unless there is some time constraint (or unless the handwritings were unusually similar, which probably means that the 2nd writer was trying to mimic the 1st writer, which makes it a contested roll, Int (investigation) vs Int (forgery kit)

And here I am thinking forging handwriting would be Dex based...

[Segev]

To me finding keys is far harder than noticing the handwriting has changed :)

but I don't think either of them are actually challenges unless there is some time constraint (or unless the handwritings were unusually similar, which probably means that the 2nd writer was trying to mimic the 1st writer, which makes it a contested roll, Int (investigation) vs Int (forgery kit)

Like I said, my examples probably aren't very good, but they serve as examples of the form I'd like to see, personally. The (lack of) quality of my examples is actually indicative of why I make these requests, rather than just creating this handy document, myself! :smallredface:

[Waterdeep Merch]

I've been using a very simple system based on what sort of person could be reasonably expected to accomplish a task, keeping tiers of play in mind.

First, the tiers-

Tier -1 is for a child, assuming 6's for most stats and no proficiency (-2)
Tier 0 is for a commoner with 8-10's across the board and +2 for proficiency. (+2)
Tier 1 is for a level 1 player, assuming a main stat of 16 and +2 for proficiency. (+5)
Tier 2 is for a level 5 player, assuming a main stat of 18 and +3 for proficiency. (+7)
Tier 3 is for a level 11 player, assuming a main stat of 20 and +4 for proficiency (+9)
Tier 4 is for a level 17 player, assuming a main stat of 20 and +6 for proficiency (+11)

Tiers -1 and 0 are already defined for us by virtue of existing (a child or a basic, talentless adult). For the others, we define them like so-

Tier 1 means an expert or a fresh hero. Represents people that are among the strongest and the most promising in your local small town.
Tier 2 means a professional or a typical fantasy hero. Represents people with the power to be shakers and movers at a national level.
Tier 3 means a master or a person at the peak of mortal potential. Represents people with the power to change the world, for good or ill.
Tier 4 means someone who surpasses their own mortality. Represents people so powerful that their existence can have repercussions for multiple planes of existence and can even challenge gods.

Now for the DC's-

(Tier -1) If your average child could accomplish a task under duress most of the time, DC 2. If it requires specialized knowledge to do so, DC 4.
(Tier 0) If your average grown adult could accomplish a task under duress most of the time, DC 4. If it requires specialized knowledge to do so, DC 6.
(Tier 1) If the task would require above-average aptitude to accomplish with regularity under duress, DC 7. If it requires specialized knowledge to do so, DC 9.
(Tier 2) If the task would require excellent aptitude to accomplish with regularity under duress, DC 8. If it requires specialized knowledge to do so, DC 11.
(Tier 3) If the task would require peak aptitude to accomplish with regularity under duress, DC 9. If it requires specialized knowledge to do so, DC 13.
(Tier 4) If the task would require perfect mortal aptitudes to accomplish with regularity under duress, same as above at DC 9. If it requires specialized knowledge to do so, DC 15.

This all assumes an 80% success rate, and purposely ignores things like expertise. If duress is taken out of the situation, reduce DC's by 5 or outright handwave it, the equivalent of taking 20.

Tasks above DC 15 exist for things that would be difficult to successfully do with regularity for anyone, regardless of ability. Still, consider which level you would first expect someone to be able to do it 50% of the time, then add +6 to that number.

You'll notice this means I don't use DC's above 21. And I don't. I find the idea of DC's beyond this absolutely silly and at odds with the best features of bounded accuracy; it should be possible for most players to attempt just about anything, but someone with the right aptitudes and training should feel confident in their ability to do these things. Why scale numbers just to make things hard? If a player wants to be an expert at something, let 'em.

[Tanarii]

You'll notice this means I don't use DC's above 21. And I don't. I find the idea of DC's beyond this absolutely silly and at odds with the best features of bounded accuracy; it should be possible for most players to attempt just about anything, but someone with the right aptitudes and training should feel confident in their ability to do these things. Why scale numbers just to make things hard? If a player wants to be an expert at something, let 'em.
DCs 19-21 are for things an person can only accomplish a fraction of the time, outside their area of special focus or natural aptitude.

DCs 22-25 are things an hero can accomplish a fraction of the time, and even then within their area of special focus or natural aptitude.

DC 26+ are for things only a hero can accomplish a fraction of the time, and even then within their area of special focus and natural aptitude

[47Ace]

I'd like to see an adventure, even if homebrewed, that really delved into skills and exploration.

I think it would be cool where half the adventure was climbing an ice cliff somewhere. Just surviving and finding food.

I think if adventures made more of an effort to really make exploration and travel more inclusive it would stop being a hand-wave at tables.

After reading all this rock climbing stuff, it sounds pretty cool and I think someone could design an adventure where skill/travel/exploration is as exciting as combat.

Maybe hand holds require a sleight of hand check, and so much climbing can force exhaustion.

Its funny, but sometimes stuff in game, makes players want to try it for real.

Now its archery and rock climbing on my list of stuff to do IRL.

And I think skills have to become more complex in 5E, 5E has to grow and evolve.

Climbing obviously from the conversation cannot be just strength anymore, I think someone good at climbing could break it up where at certain points during a long climb you might require an intelligence (nature) check to judge "hand-holds" and then a dexterity(sleight-of-hand) check to actually squeeze your hand in there. And wisdom (perception) to see the hand hold in the first place

And 5E needs climbing tools "proficiency" to make it more realistic.

Obviously spellcasters can make stuff easier, but spells don't last all that long actually and flying in the cold or desert heat could force some concentration checks. Getting buffeted by high winds or blinded by the sun can cause a concentration check... that way spell can't always solve everything

The designer have done a good job, but skills usage needs to be more engaging.

Like hire a rock climber like Bear Grylls or even someone on the forum to write out a scenario that isn't just an athletics' check.

And I will try out rock climbing and archery (not at the same time, I can barely type).... if I break something... it y'alls fault

I would also love to see an adventure focused around well implemented skill checks.

On the second part the big problem with that is that it makes building someone who is good at climbing impossible. If it is just an athletics check then you can do so by playing a class that uses strength and taking the appropriate profiancy. If you add in multiple states and multiple different profiancys it becomes impractical. You mentioned three different stats on your example witch given that a meaningful level of skill in a stat is +4/+5 giving a 20 to 25% higher success rate you are forced into a 15,15,15,8,8,8 state line or similar. Just to be good at one ability. You also get to good at other things you don't nessisaraly want to be good at. That fact that you mentioned multiple checks means that you are effectively rolling at super super disadvantage.

[Tanarii]

Right. When I DM, here is my table:

DC 5 - a challenge the average PC can accomplish around 75%-85% of the time, and one that has significant focus or minor focus + experience can accomplish 100% of the time

DC 10 - a challenge the average PC can accomplish 50-60%, one with significant focus or experience can accomplish 75% of the time, and one with significant focus and experience / exceptional trainin can accomplish 100% of the time.

DC 15 - a challenge the average PC can accomplish 25-35%, one with significant focus or experience can accomplish 50% of the time, and one with significant focus and experience / exceptional trainin can accomplish 75% of the time.

That's the range of checks I use, weighted mostly to 5-10. But that's because I don't often call for 'One Check To Rule Them All' checks where the party just puts the best PC modifier forward. If I used DC 15 as my norm checks would be failed more often than not. Most PCs are rolling with -1 to +1, not +4 on up.

Edit: this is less necessary if your DMing cadence is less "make a DC 7 Sleight of Hand check" and more "that's a DC 15 Sleight of Hand check. Are you sure you want to do that?"

Edit2: sorry this is OT for this thread. We've looked at Climbing and IMO we've got something roughly usable, and even has some nice heroic fantasy assumptions, ie climbing in full gear with boots on is the baseline I assume? (Need to revisit that edited post to be sure). What's next? How about Acrobatcis? Medicine? Performance? All three of these could use some love and inspiration for DMs to allow them to apply to checks more often.

Also, we should consider tables for ability checks without an associated skill name. Since that's the basis for the 5e Ability Check system. Tables for skills are all very well but they do tend to encourage back to front thinking of "what skill does this check fall under?" as opposed to "what ability does this fall under, now what proficiencies might reasonably apply?"

[Mongobear]

Edit2: sorry this is OT for this thread. We've looked at Climbing and IMO we've got something roughly usable, and even has some nice heroic fantasy assumptions, ie climbing in full gear with boots on is the baseline I assume? (Need to revisit that edited post to be sure). What's next? How about Acrobatcis? Medicine? Performance? All three of these could use some love and inspiration for DMs to allow them to apply to checks more often.

Also, we should consider tables for ability checks without an associated skill name. Since that's the basis for the 5e Ability Check system. Tables for skills are all very well but they do tend to encourage back to front thinking of "what skill does this check fall under?" as opposed to "what ability does this fall under, now what proficiencies might reasonably apply?"

Maybe the Charisma "Social Interaction" trio, since they can largely be used for similar things? (Also, they tend to be the hardest for me to set accurately.)

Maybe Medicine?

For non-Skill ability checks, what do you have in mind exactly? Most things I can think of fall under Skills or Tools, and the Tool stuff is already (sorta) covered.

EDIT - Once the Climb table is cleaned up as deemed finished by the masses, I plan on editing the OP to start categorizing everything by skill.

Now that I think of it, Climbing is only one aspect of Athletics, we should expand it to cover other stuff that could be covered.

[Tanarii]

Maybe the Charisma "Social Interaction" trio, since they can largely be used for similar things? (Also, they tend to be the hardest for me to set accurately.)The DMG already has a solid table for charisma checks along the lines of "I want something from this person".


For non-Skill ability checks, what do you have in mind exactly? Most things I can think of fall under Skills or Tools, and the Tool stuff is already (sorta) covered.We could look to the PHB ability checks section for inspiration. For example, gathering information is supposed to be a straight Cha check.


Now that I think of it, Climbing is only one aspect of Athletics, we should expand it to cover other stuff that could be covered.Per the PHB

Jumping DCs needed for
- exceeding your distance
- pulling a stunt mid air

Swimming checks for:
- treacherous currents, storm-tossed waves, or areas of thick seaweed.
- another creature tries to push or pull you underwater or otherwise interfere with your swimming.

[Mongobear]

The DMG already has a solid table for charisma checks along the lines of "I want something from this person".

We could look to the PHB ability checks section for inspiration. For example, gathering information is supposed to be a straight Cha check.

Per the PHB

Jumping DCs needed for
- exceeding your distance
- pulling a stunt mid air

Swimming checks for:
- treacherous currents, storm-tossed waves, or areas of thick seaweed.
- another creature tries to push or pull you underwater or otherwise interfere with your swimming.

I forgot about the DMG table, mostly because I prefer stuff like that to be in-character instead of a roll. But sometimes, either I or the PC isn't able to come up with a good line, so I'll make up a DC.

Gather Info I always just one of the 3 Interaction skills, just refluff how they gain the info. Persuasion = Nicely asking or bribery, Intimidation = Beating it out of them, Deception = Lying about why you're asking (impersonating a Guard is common).

I've even Done it as active Perception, sort of 'eaves-dropping' on a conversation happening across the room or behind a door.

God, yes! Jumping is a big one. You automatically get the distances with a running start, but how do we gauge jumping further? DC 0 = Str score/mod, for every extra foot it's +5 DC? +2 DC? We have an experienced Rock climber in the thread, is anyone an Olympian Long/High Jumper?

Swimming too, as it's almost as hard to gauge as climbing. Also, I used to Swim in high school, but that's in a still pool, not rough white water. Also, imo, Swimming's minimum DC should be somewhat higher as failure can lead to immediate death, maybe "non-Proficiency in Athletics represents that you don't know how to swim, and make checks with (Disadvantage)?"

[stoutstien]

I forgot about the DMG table, mostly because I prefer stuff like that to be in-character instead of a roll. But sometimes, either I or the PC isn't able to come up with a good line, so I'll make up a DC.

Gather Info I always just one of the 3 Interaction skills, just refluff how they gain the info. Persuasion = Nicely asking or bribery, Intimidation = Beating it out of them, Deception = Lying about why you're asking (impersonating a Guard is common).

I've even Done it as active Perception, sort of 'eaves-dropping' on a conversation happening across the room or behind a door.

God, yes! Jumping is a big one. You automatically get the distances with a running start, but how do we gauge jumping further? DC 0 = Str score/mod, for every extra foot it's +5 DC? +2 DC? We have an experienced Rock climber in the thread, is anyone an Olympian Long/High Jumper?

Swimming too, as it's almost as hard to gauge as climbing. Also, I used to Swim in high school, but that's in a still pool, not rough white water. Also, imo, Swimming's minimum DC should be somewhat higher as failure can lead to immediate death, maybe "non-Proficiency in Athletics represents that you don't know how to swim, and make checks with (Disadvantage)?"

I think trying to use any real world comparison is going to cause a disconnect and further punish classes not built around spell.

Using the jumping rules as an example a lv 1 character with only 10 strength is making a standing long jump of 5 feet which above average for athletics IRL. But not only that they can do this while equiped with the equivalent of a modern soldier's full load out.

If you are gonna to use real world as a comparison of say it should be the lowest point on the scales

[AdAstra]

By the way, while I feel we’ve more or less “completed” climbing, I’d like to draw attention to this little event.
(video)
https://mobile.twitter.com/Serrels/status/1186052664347332610

Less than seven seconds, on a well-marked (and likely practiced beforehand? I’m not familiar with the protocol here. It’s definitely a standardized wall) but sparse course over 15 meters (nearly 50 feet) at great speed. Equally notably, the one on the right slips and still does it in less than 10. According to wikipedia the men’s record for the same is 5.48 seconds.

I think that this is a good metric for the limits (for now) of human climbing, and a good demonstration of what that actually looks like.

[NNescio]

By the way, while I feel we’ve more or less “completed” climbing, I’d like to draw attention to this little event.
(video)
https://mobile.twitter.com/Serrels/status/1186052664347332610

Less than seven seconds, on a well-marked (and likely practiced beforehand? I’m not familiar with the protocol here. It’s definitely a standardized wall) but sparse course over 15 meters (nearly 50 feet) at great speed. Equally notably, the one on the right slips and still does it in less than 10. According to wikipedia the men’s record for the same is 5.48 seconds.

I think that this is a good metric for the limits (for now) of human climbing, and a good demonstration of what that actually looks like.

What do you think, @Tanarii? You're our resident climbing expert here.

(Please go easy on the jargon, if it's alright with you.)

[Waterdeep Merch]

DCs 19-21 are for things an person can only accomplish a fraction of the time, outside their area of special focus or natural aptitude.

DCs 22-25 are things an hero can accomplish a fraction of the time, and even then within their area of special focus or natural aptitude.

DC 26+ are for things only a hero can accomplish a fraction of the time, and even then within their area of special focus and natural aptitude

These are good. If I were to exceed 21, this is about what I'd call them.

When developing difficulties like this, I find knowing the standards you're comparing things with to be the most important detail for developing reasonably realistic and reliable models. If Ted the Uneducated Farmer can be expected to do something right most of the time, it shouldn't have DC 15. That's ludicrous.

[Tanarii]

What do you think, @Tanarii? You're our resident climbing expert here.

(Please go easy on the jargon, if it's alright with you.)

I looked it up, the competitive route is standardized, it's always the same, so I assume they know it very well and have practiced many times. It's a 5.10c with a 5 degree overhang, which is relatively easy to your typically multi-times-a-week gym rat. None of that is to belittle, just explain how they can go so very fast on it.

As I noted upthread I'm lucky to complete a 5.10c at all depending on how much I've been climbing recently. I'm hardly a gym rat, I avaerage about 2-3 times a month in or out. I'd like to think I could complete the climb given the largish size hand holds it has, but those star shaped holds can be deceiving, and any overhang is no joke at that height. :smallamused:

A bit of climbing jargon, the leaps she does at the beginning for the first two moves is called a dyno (dynamic move).



God, yes! Jumping is a big one. You automatically get the distances with a running start, but how do we gauge jumping further? DC 0 = Str score/mod, for every extra foot it's +5 DC? +2 DC? We have an experienced Rock climber in the thread, is anyone an Olympian Long/High Jumper?No experience, but here's some excerpts from the SRD rules. We just need to account for 3e's high possible bonuses, and 5e's no check baseline, and we should be able to figure out a conversion metric.

Note that personally I've stolen Hop Up and Jump Down maneuvers for my game, although not at the listed DCs. (To contrast the latter to another 3e skill damage avoidance rule, I do not allow Acrobatics checks to Tumble and avoid OA damage.)

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/jump.htm

Long Jump
5 feet 5
10 feet 10
15 feet 15
20 feet 20
25 feet 25
30 feet 30
Requires a 20-foot running start. Without a running start, double the DC.

High Jump
Requires a 20-foot running start. Without a running start, double the DC.
1 foot 4
2 feet 8
3 feet 12
4 feet 16
5 feet 20
6 feet 24
7 feet 28
8 feet 32
Not including vertical reach; see below.
Requires a 20-foot running start. Without a running start, double the DC.


Hop Up
You can jump up onto an object as tall as your waist, such as a table or small boulder, with a DC 10 Jump check. Doing so counts as 10 feet of movement, so if your speed is 30 feet, you could move 20 feet, then hop up onto a counter. You do not need to get a running start to hop up, so the DC is not doubled if you do not get a running start.

Jumping Down
If you intentionally jump from a height, you take less damage than you would if you just fell. The DC to jump down from a height is 15. You do not have to get a running start to jump down, so the DC is not doubled if you do not get a running start.

If you succeed on the check, you take falling damage as if you had dropped 10 fewer feet than you actually did.

[AdAstra]

Yeah one would assume a well-practiced route would vastly outpace a "natural" situation.

I might actually change some of the incline assumptions in my table. From what you've said, and it makes sense given the little amount of climbing I've done, even a small overhang results in a notable increase in difficulty.

Also, for jumping, as a reference, the world record for a running start is nearly 30 feet for men, nearly 25 for women. Using the larger number for simplicity could be a good benchmark.

[Mongobear]

Also, for jumping, as a reference, the world record for a running start is nearly 30 feet for men, nearly 25 for women. Using the larger number for simplicity could be a good benchmark.

I would assume that would be equivalent to a 20 Strength, in 5e terms. Although, they are putting forth much more effort, and generally not no-neck Goliath body builders.

3.5e was a 1:1 DC to Distance, but it didn't have a minimum. Does that matter? 20ft jump for weaker Characters is DC 20? It sounds fine to me, not sure how to model 21+ ft jumps.

[diplomancer]

I would assume that would be equivalent to a 20 Strength, in 5e terms. Although, they are putting forth much more effort, and generally not no-neck Goliath body builders.

3.5e was a 1:1 DC to Distance, but it didn't have a minimum. Does that matter? 20ft jump for weaker Characters is DC 20? It sounds fine to me, not sure how to model 21+ ft jumps.

You know, if you want to have longer jumps (which I'm not sure we should, most adventurers, specially the stronger ones, are doing those jumps not on a race track but in full Plate Armor) I think that better than making it a DC, it could be interesting to say "if you have athletics, you can add one extra foot per proficiency bonus you have". Expertise applies. (If it's on a grid, say that if you have finished more than half of the grid, 3', you can go to the next grid, as long as you still have movement for your turn. You can even add more granularity by stating that if you do not have the whole distance, you make the jump but fall prone... consider that long jumps as a sport always ends up with the athlete prone)

For high jumps, half proficiency, expertise does not apply (unless you are going for more heroic, less realistic... a 13th level character with expertise could jump over a 15' obstacle).

It's certainly simpler.

Also, monks definitely should be able to use their dex instead of strength (and maybe acrobatics instead of athletics... though just having better jumps might encourage more monks to take athletics). As it is now, a 10 Str monk using his ki for step of the wind jumps about as far as a 20 str fighter in plate mail, and less high.

[Tanarii]

I would assume that would be equivalent to a 20 Strength, in 5e terms. Although, they are putting forth much more effort, and generally not no-neck Goliath body builders.

3.5e was a 1:1 DC to Distance, but it didn't have a minimum. Does that matter? 20ft jump for weaker Characters is DC 20? It sounds fine to me, not sure how to model 21+ ft jumps.We can probably assume a world record is a cap, so DC 30 with Str 20. If it's linear, starting at DC 10 base to extend your jump 0ft, we end up with 20ft base, 30ft at DC 30, or DC 10 + 2/extended ft.

Personally I like it to be difficult to extend your jump at all from the baseline. That's why I'd start with a 0ft increase for DC 10, then scale from there.

That does mean a Str 10 character can jump the same extra distance (although lower base) for the same DC, which seems like a flaw at first glance. But since it's a Str check to begin with, they are already find it harder to make the check. Using this, on average, a Str 10 character shouldn't be able to extend their jump unless they get lucky, whereas a Str 14 char or low levels trained in Althletics can pull off an extra 1ft half the time, and Str 18 or level 9 trained can pull off an extra 2ft half the time. And Max is hard capped at an extra 10ft.

That feels about right to me. But I like my martials to be guys at the gym. YMMV. Especially if you like wushu martials.

[stoutstien]

We can probably assume a world record is a cap, so DC 30 with Str 20. If it's linear, starting at DC 10 base to extend your jump 0ft, we end up with 20ft base, 30ft at DC 30, or DC 10 + 2/extended ft.

Personally I like it to be difficult to extend your jump at all from the baseline. That's why I'd start with a 0ft increase for DC 10, then scale from there.

That does mean a Str 10 character can jump the same extra distance (although lower base) for the same DC, which seems like a flaw at first glance. But since it's a Str check to begin with, they are already find it harder to make the check. Using this, on average, a Str 10 character shouldn't be able to extend their jump unless they get lucky, whereas a Str 14 char or low levels trained in Althletics can pull off an extra 1ft half the time, and Str 18 or level 9 trained can pull off an extra 2ft half the time. And Max is hard capped at an extra 10ft.

That feels about right to me. But I like my martials to be guys at the gym. YMMV. Especially if you like wushu martials.

This is why we really need 3 charts. One for low, medium, and high fantasy.
Some games will have a strong base in real world limits while the next game will have rogues bouncing around like a squirrel on red bull.
Definitely needs to be laid out at session zero so everyone knows.

[Tanarii]

This is why we really need 3 charts. One for low, medium, and high fantasy.
Some games will have a strong base in real world limits while the next game will have rogues bouncing around like a squirrel on red bull.
Definitely needs to be laid out at session zero so everyone knows.
5e is pretty wushu / high fantasy already. A Str 10 character can jump 10ft without any need for a check in full gear and land on their feet and keep moving. I don't have any experience, but that sounds insane at face value.

So keep in mind I'm talking about a hard cap with Str 20 at jumping 30ft fully geared up with up to 300 lbs, and landing on your feet, changing direction 90 degrees if desired, and keeping on moving. Plus attacking accurately.

[stoutstien]

5e is pretty wushu / high fantasy already. A Str 10 character can jump 10ft without any need for a check in full gear and land on their feet and keep moving. I don't have any experience, but that sounds insane at face value.

So keep in mind I'm talking about a hard cap with Str 20 at jumping 30ft fully geared up with up to 300 lbs, and landing on your feet, changing direction 90 degrees if desired, and keeping on moving. Plus attacking accurately.

Sort of, we run into the weird point where due to movement speed they can jump further than they can move. Or is this a standing broad jump?

[AdAstra]

In my opinion, I can think of three good standards.

1. Normal human capability- assume 10 more or less corresponds with an average human in capabilities, and 20 is at or close to human limits. This varies based on what humans you’re using (especially due to how soft the definitions of DnD stats are), as your average medieval peasant is going to be notably different from the modern guy at the gym or sedentary office worker. But in general, the rough minimums and maximums for human capability should be represented.

One thing I think we can all agree on is that there is very little reason to have any standard significantly lower than this except for a comedy game. Maybe you can’t get to the very tip of the bell curve, but if your character fails at something they should obviously be able to succeed at in real life, that’s a problem unless you’re specifically looking to fail at most things.

2. Characters can expect to meet the limits of human capability and eventually surpass them, but not in any fundamental way. Think stereotypical supersoldiers. Basically the “16 is about as high as humans get in the real world” school. You can run and jump better than olympians, or beat Einstein’s intuition, but you can’t do things categorically outside human limits. Obviously definitions will differ as to what’s categorically outside human limits, but it’s a useful focal point of discussion.

3. Mythical. What’s at the lower end of the scale could vary depending on taste, but the upper end should be feats worthy of old folk heroes or greek demigods. Decapitate a mountain, talk someone to death, eat a bowl of poisoned razorblades for breakfast and still have room for a glass of boiling oil, that sorta thing.

[Mongobear]

In my opinion, I can think of three good standards.

1. Normal human capability- assume 10 more or less corresponds with an average human in capabilities, and 20 is at or close to human limits. This varies based on what humans you’re using (especially due to how soft the definitions of DnD stats are), as your average medieval peasant is going to be notably different from the modern guy at the gym or sedentary office worker. But in general, the rough minimums and maximums for human capability should be represented.


While a valid field of balance, I don't think d&d assumes the PCs ever come from this category. They're the cream of the crop, the 1% of mortals, demigods in a world of mortals, etc.




2. Characters can expect to meet the limits of human capability and eventually surpass them, but not in any fundamental way. Think stereotypical supersoldiers. Basically the “16 is about as high as humans get in the real world” school. You can run and jump better than olympians, or beat Einstein’s intuition, but you can’t do things categorically outside human limits. Obviously definitions will differ as to what’s categorically outside human limits, but it’s a useful focal point of discussion.


I think this is a better category in certain aspects. You'd still somewhat be tied to real world limits, but it's obvious that you push boundaries, and even break them on occasion. I'd say about 75% of D&D is played here.



3. Mythical. What’s at the lower end of the scale could vary depending on taste, but the upper end should be feats worthy of old folk heroes or greek demigods. Decapitate a mountain, talk someone to death, eat a bowl of poisoned razorblades for breakfast and still have room for a glass of boiling oil, that sorta thing.

I like to think of some of the old Viking legends. A man was able to lift a 1100 pound ship mast, and carry it across a shipyard alone.(this also killed him, but he still managed to move it.)

Another legend was a Viking warrior slaying 100 men single handedly, and survived.

A lot of Greek mythology fits here too.

[diplomancer]

I really think that, with the 5' grid of 5e, it makes more sense to make the jumps a set distance, not a skill check. People usually vary about how far they can jump every time they try, but not with a 3' (or more) difference!

Look at this description of the most famous long jump context of all time, between Lewis and Powell:


"Lewis's first jump was 8.68 m (28 ft 5 1⁄2 in), a World Championship record, and a mark bested by only three others beside Lewis all-time. Powell, jumping first, had faltered in the first round, but jumped 8.54 m (28 ft 0 in) to claim second place in the second round.[65] Lewis jumped 8.83 m (28 ft 11 1⁄2 in), a wind-aided leap, in the third round, a mark that would have won all but two long jump competitions in history. Powell responded with a long foul, estimated to be around 8.80 m (28 ft 10 1⁄4 in). Lewis's next jump made history: the first leap ever beyond Bob Beamon's record. The wind gauge indicated the jump was wind-aided, so it could not be considered a record, but it would still count in the competition. 8.91 m (29 ft 2 3⁄4 in) was the greatest leap ever under any condition.[65]

In the next round, Powell responded. His jump was measured as 8.95 m (29 ft 4 1⁄4 in); this time, his jump was not a foul, and with a wind gauge measurement of 0.3 m/s, well within the legal allowable for a record. Powell had not only jumped 4 cm further than Lewis, he had eclipsed the 23-year-old mark set by Bob Beamon and done so at low altitude.[65] Lewis still had two jumps left, although he was now no longer chasing Beamon, but Powell. He leaped 8.87 m (29 ft 1 in), which was a new personal best under legal wind conditions, then a final jump of 8.84 m (29 ft 0 in). He thus lost his first long jump competition in a decade.[66] Powell's 8.95 m (29 ft 4 1⁄4 in) and Lewis's final two jumps still stand as of July 2017 as the top three low altitude jumps ever. The farthest anyone has jumped since under legal conditions is 8.74 m (28 ft 8 in)."

The difference between the shortest jump and the longest jump between these world-class athletes at their top level was a little over 1 foot. I see no reason to have a much greater variance than this, to the point that a skill check is uncalled for.

[stoutstien]

While a valid field of balance, I don't think d&d assumes the PCs ever come from this category. They're the cream of the crop, the 1% of mortals, demigods in a world of mortals, etc.




I think this is a better category in certain aspects. You'd still somewhat be tied to real world limits, but it's obvious that you push boundaries, and even break them on occasion. I'd say about 75% of D&D is played here.



I like to think of some of the old Viking legends. A man was able to lift a 1100 pound ship mast, and carry it across a shipyard alone.(this also killed him, but he still managed to move it.)

Another legend was a Viking warrior slaying 100 men single handedly, and survived.

A lot of Greek mythology fits here too.

As corny as they are, Bollywood movies fit here also. They are mortals but some parts of reality just don't apply to them.

[Mongobear]

As corny as they are, Bollywood movies fit here also. They are mortals but some parts of reality just don't apply to them.

I just did the math for the 1100lb lift.

That guy would've needed a 19 Str, Powerful Build, AND another source of "double lifting limit" to pull that off in 5e mechanics, and survive. My guess I he was just short of those specs and rolled well, but the stress was so great he died from it.

He was a level 6 Bear Totem Goliath, minimum

[Tanarii]

I really think that, with the 5' grid of 5e,
What 5' grid of 5e?

[snickersnax]

For charisma skills I like to combine the DC charts found in the DMG on p245 into a single mega chart:

CONVERSATION REACTION for charisma checks:

DC Creature's Reaction
0 The creature opposes the adventurers ' actions and might take risks to do so.
10 The creature offers no help but does no harm.
20 The creature does as asked as long as no risks or sacrifices are involved.
30 The creature accepts a minor risk or sacrifice to do
40 The creature accepts a significant risk or sacrifice to do as asked.

+0 bonus for hostile creatures
+10 bonus for indifferent creatures
+20 bonus for friendly or charmed creatures

[diplomancer]

What 5' grid of 5e?

Ok, with the somewhat usual grid of 5' of 5e. Though I think that it applies for all published adventures, so that's something.

Even theater of the mind, the point (that jumping does not provide for much variance, so just give a bonus to the maximum distance if the character has athletics) applies.

[Mongobear]

What 5' grid of 5e?

I mean, the DMG(or was it XGtE?) literally has an optional rule section for using a grid for combat, and even without it, it mentions creature spaces, and AoE using 5' squares.

[Tanarii]

Optional DMG rules are just that. If 5e has a grid, it's an invisible 1ft grid.

Don't get me wrong, I use a battle mat from time to time ... For combat. But the base rules do not assume a 5ft grid, in or out of combat.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I mean, the DMG(or was it XGtE?) literally has an optional rule section for using a grid for combat, and even without it, it mentions creature spaces, and AoE using 5' squares.

It's the PHB that shows the grid variant of combat (coupled with the rules of combat). Setting a DC for extending your jump (from my jumping in point to this conversation, pun intended) seems a lot easier to tie into the game if you assume that the grid variant is set to "on" for your table.

It depends on how far you want to allow a player to extend their jump, if only by a few feet (less than 5) this wouldn't be feasible on a grid. If you're going more than 5, scaling it up in intervals of 5 to accommodate the squares runs the risk of scaling the DC up too fast or scaling up the extended distance too high for a low DC, the latter being more problematic in my opinion.

I think Tanarii's examples on extending jump distance is a close approximation of what I would be comfortable running, although in general I think that the distance you're allowed to jump by default is more than forgiving and I would probably make it more difficult unless you're really only trying to push an extra foot or two out for exploration based checks.

[AdAstra]

While a valid field of balance, I don't think d&d assumes the PCs ever come from this category. They're the cream of the crop, the 1% of mortals, demigods in a world of mortals, etc.

I mean, in this system a person with 20 in a stat is supposed to be the cream of the crop for those tasks, but an 8 is still expected to be less than the average person. On the whole, PCs may be the best of the best, but that doesn't mean they're the best of the best at everything. Being the best weightlifter in the world has basically no impact on your intelligence, for example.


I think this is a better category in certain aspects. You'd still somewhat be tied to real world limits, but it's obvious that you push boundaries, and even break them on occasion. I'd say about 75% of D&D is played here.

Agreed. Though in many cases I've found that what people think "makes sense" for normal humans has zero correlation with what humans are actually capable of. So you end up with "superhumans" who are basically just mildly strong humans.


I like to think of some of the old Viking legends. A man was able to lift a 1100 pound ship mast, and carry it across a shipyard alone.(this also killed him, but he still managed to move it.)

Another legend was a Viking warrior slaying 100 men single handedly, and survived.

A lot of Greek mythology fits here too.

Yeah, I specifically mentioned the Greeks, though I stuck with demigods because they're the familiar ones. Diomedes from the Iliad is a notable example of a true mortal who was capable of such feats as carving through armies and besting Ares in combat (admittedly with the guidance of Athena, but still).

One thing of critical note: When you talk about a viking lifting and carrying a 1100 lb log as a mythical act, I would intensely disagree. That probably falls under superhuman. Paul Anderson supposedly managed to backlift a preposterous weight of 6270 pounds (though this is anecdotal and thus possibly exaggerated. The Guinness Book of World Records currently recognizes a smaller weight of 5340). He didn't have to truly carry or move it, but still, that's more than 5.5 times the "mythical" weight. Carried weights tend to be way lower, but the distance record for a 400 kg (880 lbs) Farmer's Walk (half the weight held in each hand) is ~67 ft 10 inches distance. And of course, none of the record-setters died in the process. If the viking was dragging it, it might be within the reach of the strongest humans. Regardless, it's certainly not in an entire other category from human achievements, just exceeding them by a good bit.

[Mongobear]

One thing of critical note: When you talk about a viking lifting and carrying a 1100 lb log as a mythical act, I would intensely disagree. That probably falls under superhuman. Paul Anderson supposedly managed to backlift a preposterous weight of 6270 pounds (though this is anecdotal and thus possibly exaggerated. The Guinness Book of World Records currently recognizes a smaller weight of 5340). He didn't have to truly carry or move it, but still, that's more than 5.5 times the "mythical" weight. Carried weights tend to be way lower, but the distance record for a 400 kg (880 lbs) Farmer's Walk (half the weight held in each hand) is ~67 ft 10 inches distance. And of course, none of the record-setters died in the process. If the viking was dragging it, it might be within the reach of the strongest humans. Regardless, it's certainly not in an entire other category from human achievements, just exceeding them by a good bit.

The log was "mythical" is that he was just a regular guy, and the record lasted for like 500+ years, iirc.

He was supposedly hefting it on his shoulders, fully off the ground and walking about.

He didn't just lift it off the ground for the sake of doing it, it'd be approximately equivalent to the Farmers Walk, but I'm not a bodybuilder/strongman to really know jargon.

The 5340 lift is also almost accurate to 5e, assuming Powerful Build and Bear Totem level 6, he had an equivalent strength Score of 45 using the formula. If there is a 3rd way to double lift/carry capacity, Enhance Ability maybe, it'd be ~23 Strength, but afaik there is only Bear Totem and Powerful Build unless he was Large Size as well.

I can certainly see some of those numbers being realistic and able to be pulled off.

Also, similarly to Jumping, 5e lifting I effortless. You either can or you can't. I was thinking of a "power lift" check, which would have a Base DC of 15-20 then for every point you beat it by, you can lift an additional 30lbs. (30lbs is the increment for these checks per point of Strength.

[djreynolds]

I really like this idea of a well thought out Skill DC table. Mongobear you really put in some excellent work.

I have begun pushing more skill usage at my table, just to get players more usage out of their skills

But what needs to change IMO is how things are represented in 5E.

Something like climbing uses multiple attributes and I think what could be added or fluffed are perhaps a skill has a primary ability and a secondary.

I apologize if this is the wrong thread to throw out these ideas.

Something like persuasion, though a charisma check, should/could be influenced by a higher or lower intelligence or wisdom score.

Charisma is "how" you say it and intelligence is "what" you say

[Mongobear]

I already allow Strength based Intimidation, like "physically bullying" or power flexing when you threaten them.

Climbing should have an either/or for Athletics and Acrobatics, as it'd take different skill-sets to climb different things, I would imagine. Like rope ladders and similar would take more hand-eye coordination than brute forcing up a rock face.

[AdAstra]

I would have climbing work somewhat like grappling. Acrobatics and dex can be used, but only for a specific subset of climbing tasks. Don’t forget that acrobatics has it’s own independent uses, so to make it anywhere near as useful as Athletics for things explicitly covered by athletics is a bad idea. Athletics is by nature, and by designer intent, extremely broad.

Basically, if grip strength (obvious) or rapid upward ascent is required (since hauling yourself and your gear up against gravity at high speed is definitely in the domain of strength), then I would disallow Acrobatics. It should only be useable in situations where careful movement and balance are the most important factors. And even in those situations, I would still allow the use of Athletics, since it does certainly cover one’s ability to coordinate one’s movement, and various other kinesthetic tasks.

So climbing up a rope would be a no-go, but a going up/down a rock wall with easy handholds at normal or slow speed? Sure.

I’ve also changed a couple things with my climb table. Modified some wording and added a modifier for going down a rope, since that’s way easier than going up one.

I think I’ll do something interesting for the charisma skills. Rather than use example DCs, I think I’ll write a short guide on what to consider when setting a DC. Social interactions are simultaneously way too complex and way too fuzzy for benchmarks to be all that useful.

[Mongobear]

I would have climbing work somewhat like grappling. Acrobatics and dex can be used, but only for a specific subset of climbing tasks. Don’t forget that acrobatics has it’s own independent uses, so to make it anywhere near as useful as Athletics for things explicitly covered by athletics is a bad idea. Athletics is by nature, and by designer intent, extremely broad.

Basically, if grip strength (obvious) or rapid upward ascent is required (since hauling yourself and your gear up against gravity at high speed is definitely in the domain of strength), then I would disallow Acrobatics. It should only be useable in situations where careful movement and balance are the most important factors. And even in those situations, I would still allow the use of Athletics, since it does certainly cover one’s ability to coordinate one’s movement, and various other kinesthetic tasks.

So climbing up a rope would be a no-go, but a going up/down a rock wall with easy handholds at normal or slow speed? Sure.

I’ve also changed a couple things with my climb table. Modified some wording and added a modifier for going down a rope, since that’s way easier than going up one.

I think I’ll do something interesting for the charisma skills. Rather than use example DCs, I think I’ll write a short guide on what to consider when setting a DC. Social interactions are simultaneously way too complex and way too fuzzy for benchmarks to be all that useful.

Honestly, with the exception of a few niche situations, Athletics and Acrobatics are nearly interchangeable. Almost every function that uses one can be swapped for the other. It's difficult to draw a line dividing the two. Would combining the two isn't a broader "Physical Exertion" skill that lets you use either Str/Dex be too much?

With the exception of keeping your balance is slippery stuff, I can't think of a use of Acrobatics atm that doesn't offer Athletics substitution.

[stoutstien]

Honestly, with the exception of a few niche situations, Athletics and Acrobatics are nearly interchangeable. Almost every function that uses one can be swapped for the other. It's difficult to draw a line dividing the two. Would combining the two isn't a broader "Physical Exertion" skill that lets you use either Str/Dex be too much?

With the exception of keeping your balance is slippery stuff, I can't think of a use of Acrobatics atm that doesn't offer Athletics substitution.

A good rule of thumb is if is a matter of how much physical power or force is needed then use strength and if it's a matter of control and restraint it's Dex.

Jumping from roof to roof is strength while landing without making loud noise is Dex.

[Segev]

Rather than arguing over what "easy," "medium," and "hard" mean in abstract terms, I think we should be starting with examples. Pick some tasks for, say, Nature, Arcana, Investigation, and Athletics and start assigning difficulties. We can THEN debate whether they're in the right place, on the grounds already raised or just on straighforward "I don't think discerning that the King and Queen have love affairs with random guard #4 and the visiting Duke, respectively, is merely 'Easy'" type arguments.

Optional DMG rules are just that. If 5e has a grid, it's an invisible 1ft grid.

Don't get me wrong, I use a battle mat from time to time ... For combat. But the base rules do not assume a 5ft grid, in or out of combat.I'm now amused by using a hex grid marked to 1 foot, with the assumption that a Small creature occupies 2 hexes, a Medium creature 3, a Large creature 7, and a Huge creature 11, etc., and that movement is in one foot increments where you can shift any border or set of borders you have by one hex in the same direction for each foot.

This seems like it'd be highly impractical for actual use, but it amuses me.

[AdAstra]

Okay, so here's a little guide for considering how social encounters can be resolved. Generally, one should consider the following factors.

Temperament of the target

-Consider the personality, desires, and mood of the character(s). Are they kind and generous? Greedy? Eager to please?
-What does the character want, if anything? What will get their attention, instill fear, or earn their respect? The promise or demonstration of money, power, or knowledge? Strength of will? Prowess in battle?
-How are they feeling at this moment? Magnanimous? Hateful? Bored? Scared? Threatened?

Affinity towards the party

-Do they know the party? Are the party close friends, well-known through shared affiliations, famous heroes or villains, total strangers?
-How much do they personally like and trust the party based on the information they have available? Based on their experience, do they think that the party is likely to deliver on their promises? Are they willing to cut the party a little slack, or show a little generosity? Do they dislike the party, or feel that they aren't likely to fulfill the agreed terms?
-How well do the party's goals align with the characters'? Even an enemy may strike a deal with the party if both are seeking the same things.

Risk Vs. Reward

-What does the character have to gain from helping the party? What do they have to lose? How do the chances of success compare to the possibility of failure?

Any check involving interaction with a non-player character should involve some consideration of these factors. How the players choose to go about these interactions can affect them as well. The approach will affect the factors, and produce ripple effects as the factors interact with each other, influencing the DC.

[djreynolds]

Honestly, with the exception of a few niche situations, Athletics and Acrobatics are nearly interchangeable. Almost every function that uses one can be swapped for the other. It's difficult to draw a line dividing the two. Would combining the two isn't a broader "Physical Exertion" skill that lets you use either Str/Dex be too much?

With the exception of keeping your balance is slippery stuff, I can't think of a use of Acrobatics atm that doesn't offer Athletics substitution.

My idea would be a combination of the two.

It would benefit the 10 strength 18 dex rogue, but it would gimp the 20 strength fighter sporting an 8 dex.

But doesn't it seem more plausible that this rogue would better at climbing than the fighter... in this instance.

Averaging both modifiers and the end up with +2 (4+0=4/2=2) (5-1=4/2=2). The fighter loses out

Too be honest I don't know what a person with 20 strength and an 8 dex looks like IRL

[Mongobear]

Too be honest I don't know what a person with 20 strength and an 8 dex looks like IRL

The big meathead body builders that inject that stuff that blows their muscles up.

Someone who literally has to turn at wide angels to change directions.

[Tanarii]

Okay, so here's a little guide for considering how social encounters can be resolved. Generally, one should consider the following factors.I still feel like the DMG Social table is generally sufficient. Checks being necessary at all can easily be boiled down to situations where the PCs want something from a NPC. In which case, the tables are quite detailed already and account for NPC's initial attitude. DMs can award advantage or disadvantage for PC approach, as well as (of usual) approach determining what skill proficiency might apply if any.

In short, we already have a table that accounts for temperament & affinity, as well as risk/reward.

[opaopajr]

Are you defining these DCs in the Heroic Spectrum as "Zero to Hero" or "PCs are a Class Above the Rabble" or "Path to Demigod Status"? :smallsmile: I know you and others want to chase "realism" (verisimilitude) here, but it would help your process to know which interpretation of 'Basic 1st Lvl PCs' is being used. It may help to same-page everyone's expectations here before any contentious arguments come from misunderstanding which baseline belief is the PCs' start.

Hope that helps you all avoid arguments. Best of luck! :smallsmile:

[Segev]

Are you defining these DCs in the Heroic Spectrum as "Zero to Hero" or "PCs are a Class Above the Rabble" or "Path to Demigod Status"? :smallsmile: I know you and others want to chase "realism" (verisimilitude) here, but it would help your process to know which interpretation of 'Basic 1st Lvl PCs' is being used. It may help to same-page everyone's expectations here before any contentious arguments come from misunderstanding which baseline belief is the PCs' start.

Hope that helps you all avoid arguments. Best of luck! :smallsmile:

Honestly, I think that's a helpful question...AFTER we have some examples to start discussing. Trying to nail down the answer to this question first seems to be leading us in circles.

[AdAstra]

Interestingly enough, we kinda do have a guide, at least for combat, in the form of humanoid monsters.

Here I think are some good benchmarks:

Guard (CR 1/8)- Fantasy cops or militia. Too weak to handle most threats except in numbers. Your average level 1 character should be able to handle a couple of these guys without any serious problems.

Goblin (CR 1/4)- Not perfect, since their stats generally require a playstyle (hit-and-run/hide) that's not conducive to simple number-crunching. Require solid tactics/support to be effective and to triumph against, but will go down easily. Most weapon attacks will regularly kill them in one hit (this itself is potentially a useful benchmark).

Orc (CR 1/2)- The standard fantasy enemy. Dangerous in an immediate, straightforward sense. Can be on you quickly and hit hard enough to have a chance at knocking out any 1st-level PC in one hit (except a raging Barbarian). Overall, however, not a huge challenge once you've got some levels on you, so long as you have decent Con.

Knight/Veterans (CR 3)- Here we go. In my mind, knights should represent the best "common" fighters of the land, in that many nations could reasonably field whole units of Knights (so not actually all that common, but usually available). They're essentially elite/veteran soldiers, the strongest that a nation could field in large numbers. Any group able to reliably defeat an equal number of Knights in combat (single combat is a slightly less reliable indicator since Knights have a support ability that makes them work best with allies) should thus be considered a cut above. This is about where 5th level characters are at. Your average 5th level Fighter can usually defeat a Knight, maybe requiring the use of Action Surge and/or Second Wind. A couple failed Fireball saves will also put one down.

Mage (CR 6)- This is basically a cut-down level 9 Wizard or Sorcerer. The CR is somewhat inflated (as in they would likely be less powerful as an NPC companion over the course of an adventuring day) since they can burn all their best spells early on. Even their best damage spells (Cone of Cold or Fireball at 5th level) will not reliably put down most 5th level characters. A single Mage is a significant threat to a 5-6th level party, but will still go down pretty easily with proper tactics and a little luck.

This kinda makes sense given the Tiers of Play system. A novice Tier 2 character will outclass the vast majority of humanoids, but is still not quite the best of the best in this world. You're basically still just the best.

With that scaling in mind, I think one might be able to have some benchmarks for skills. Do note of course, since these benchmarks are based off of combat, this likely does not quite represent skill use perfectly. After all, a master smith usually doesn't have time to become a master swordsman, so the inverse should apply.

I still think my earlier system of benchmarks works pretty well. I could reiterate it if requested.

[Tanarii]

Here I think are some good benchmarks:

Guard (CR 1/8)- Fantasy cops or militia. Too weak to handle most threats except in numbers. Your average level 1 character should be able to handle a couple of these guys without any serious problems.
IMO looking at the stat block, seems these guys are like hobgoblins, probably tougher than their rating indicates at low level due to high AC. Although unlike Hobgoblins you can probably kite them if you've got room to run.

(I don't believe I've ever used Guards as enemies, only NPC allies. So purely a theorycraft comment.)

Edit: also worth noting that NPC HD are effectively their NPC level. ie that dictates their Spellcasting levels if any, and when they get watered down versions of PC abilities. So...
- a Guard appears to be a "level 2" NPC
- a veteran or knight or Mage is a "level 9" NPC

That's means veterans, knights and mages should be relatively rare. Not the backbone of an army.

[AdAstra]

IMO looking at the stat block, seems these guys are like hobgoblins, probably tougher than their rating indicates at low level due to high AC. Although unlike Hobgoblins you can probably kite them if you've got room to run.

(I don't believe I've ever used Guards as enemies, only NPC allies. So purely a theorycraft comment.)

Edit: also worth noting that NPC HD are effectively their NPC level. ie that dictates their Spellcasting levels if any, and when they get watered down versions of PC abilities. So...
- a Guard appears to be a "level 2" NPC
- a veteran or knight or Mage is a "level 9" NPC

That's means veterans, knights and mages should be relatively rare. Not the backbone of an army.

Guards are equivalent to level 2, but they pale in comparison to level 1 PCs, so functionally they're still clearly meant to be in a class below.

Yeah Veterans/Knights would be elite troops, with lesser soldiers comprising most of the numbers. In general, however, consider real life, when large militaries could reasonably expect to have actual units of such troops available in many cases, though likely only used in major conflicts. When I say "field in numbers" I just mean like, reasonably-sized formations and units. Think Army Rangers or non-US Marines in terms of numbers.

The idea is that very few nations, if any, could possibly muster a sizeable unit of PC-equivalents above level 5 or so. An adventuring party is likely to be about as large a group as such people ever congregate in, excepting desperate or exceedingly profitable situations.

[Tanarii]

Guards are equivalent to level 2, but they pale in comparison to level 1 PCs, so functionally they're still clearly meant to be in a class below.
Considering BtB it should take 7 to be a Deadly threat to 4 level 1 PCs, I'm hardly going to contest that. Althou it makes me feel bad for the Sam Vimes of the world. :smallamused:

But relevant to this thread, a chunk of what makes PCs that much better is their ability scores are higher. Which means they are more likely to pass ability checks, and then on top of that they might have class features NPCs don't that enhance that, or straight out bypass it. Being more heroic (or villainous) than the average NPC is built into being a PC. IMO there's no need to get all extra about it.

[AdAstra]

Considering BtB it should take 7 to be a Deadly threat to 4 level 1 PCs, I'm hardly going to contest that. Althou it makes me feel bad for the Sam Vimes of the world. :smallamused:

But relevant to this thread, a chunk of what makes PCs that much better is their ability scores are higher. Which means they are more likely to pass ability checks, and then on top of that they might have class features NPCs don't that enhance that, or straight out bypass it. Being more heroic (or villainous) than the average NPC is built into being a PC. IMO there's no need to get all extra about it.

Agreed. Adding special things only PCs can do is superfluous, since those things are already baked into the class and improved stats.

I still like the Superhuman PCs concept for similar reasons. The PCs are special, but more in that they get class abilities and greater stats with a higher ceiling than most humanoids. They’re not a special category of person, just very powerful.

[Waterdeep Merch]

Agreed. Adding special things only PCs can do is superfluous, since those things are already baked into the class and improved stats.

I still like the Superhuman PCs concept for similar reasons. The PCs are special, but more in that they get class abilities and greater stats with a higher ceiling than most humanoids. They’re not a special category of person, just very powerful.
It sounds weird from a roleplaying perspective, but for the sake of verisimilitude it makes a lot of sense to make most standard checks nearly impossible for a PC to fail, by virtue of the fact that they have decent stats and maybe proficiencies that put them well beyond normal people.

Against the eternal foreboding Strawman Tree of Debate, if a normal person could probably climb it, your average PC should only ever fail at climbing it if they don't have either Strength or Athletics. They're just that much better at it.

[Tanarii]

Against the eternal foreboding Strawman Tree of Debate, if a normal person could probably climb it, your average PC should only ever fail at climbing it if they don't have either Strength or Athletics. They're just that much better at it.
Sounds like you want bonuses for ability scores and proficiency to be larger relative to the base chance of success (or d20 size).

Personally I like the current scale. Primarily because it means the difference between some natural talent and training vs basic ability isn't enormous. IMO hat's important because it allows off-ability checks to have some chance of success.

Most RPG skill systems seem to have a variation from about 25 to 95% chance of success. 5e generally fits that mold, with some exceptions. Notably high level expertise + ability score vs basic tasks. The thing it doesn't have defined is "Trained Only". Which is fine by me, a player can declare if their PC doesn't know anything about something and can't make a check for it. (Limiting by proficiency doesn't work, since Ability Scores explicitly include training.)

[jjordan]

....[SNIP}.....
Suggestions are welcome to develop this into a fully formed system.
Not sure it can be done in a user-friendly format without being so generic that it essentially ends up back at the current 5e system. I mean, you could crib 3.5 or GURPS for structure and conditional modifiers.

But let's talk lock-picking

Lock-picking is a general phrase which refers to defeating a physical locking mechanism without, usually, breaking it. I will exempt magical locks from this category and, given the D&D setting, electronic and other high-technology locking devices. Lock picking requires tools that can be very simple (stick/rod, string, metal hook) to very complex (hand-powered pin rake).

A standard lock is a DC15 Dexterity - Thieves' Tools
I would add Locksmith's Tools to the name because not every locksmith is a thief.
I would assume, for the sake of simplicity, that the locksmith has the general tools they need to pick the lock.

Conditional modifiers:

Time:

-6 Taking 1 minute is rushed
-3 Taking 5 minutes is hurried
+/-0 Taking 10 minutes to pick the lock is standard
+1 Taking 15 minutes is careful
+3 Taking 20 minutes is meticulous

Tools:

-2 Improvised Tools
+/-0 General Tools
+2 Exact Tools

Conditions:

-2 Horrible
-1 Poor
+/-0 Average
+1 Good
+2 Excellent

Lock: (This is where we modify for the complexity of the device)

+10 Rudimentary
+5 Simple
+/-0 Regular
-5 Tricky
-10 Complex

[Segev]

Not sure it can be done in a user-friendly format without being so generic that it essentially ends up back at the current 5e system. I mean, you could crib 3.5 or GURPS for structure and conditional modifiers.

But let's talk lock-picking

Lock-picking is a general phrase which refers to defeating a physical locking mechanism without, usually, breaking it. I will exempt magical locks from this category and, given the D&D setting, electronic and other high-technology locking devices. Lock picking requires tools that can be very simple (stick/rod, string, metal hook) to very complex (hand-powered pin rake).

A standard lock is a DC15 Dexterity - Thieves' Tools
I would add Locksmith's Tools to the name because not every locksmith is a thief.
I would assume, for the sake of simplicity, that the locksmith has the general tools they need to pick the lock.

Conditional modifiers:

Time:

-6 Taking 1 minute is rushed
-3 Taking 5 minutes is hurried
+/-0 Taking 10 minutes to pick the lock is standard
+1 Taking 15 minutes is careful
+3 Taking 20 minutes is meticulous

Tools:

-2 Improvised Tools
+/-0 General Tools
+2 Exact Tools

Conditions:

-2 Horrible
-1 Poor
+/-0 Average
+1 Good
+2 Excellent

Lock: (This is where we modify for the complexity of the device)

+10 Rudimentary
+5 Simple
+/-0 Regular
-5 Tricky
-10 Complex
For me, this is actually way more involved and complex than what I'm looking for in 5e. (It'd be fine in PF or 3e.)

Looking in the SRD, a "lock" is listed as 10 gp. Should we assume that an average lock is a medium-difficulty task to pick? Or is an average lock hard to pick? Easy to pick?

[jjordan]

For me, this is actually way more involved and complex than what I'm looking for in 5e. (It'd be fine in PF or 3e.) Depends on what you're using something like this for. If it's a quick quideline for determining a DC it's ok. If you're using it to slavishly attempt to calculate exact changes, I agree. Too much. But it's a moderately accurate abstraction of what I think the OP was looking for. Maybe.


Looking in the SRD, a "lock" is listed as 10 gp. Should we assume that an average lock is a medium-difficulty task to pick? Or is an average lock hard to pick? Easy to pick? I would say an average lock is a medium difficulty task. Adjust up or down for complexity/cost.

[AdAstra]

I will point out that a lock as defined in the Adventuring Gear section is listed as a DC 15

[Segev]

I will point out that a lock as defined in the Adventuring Gear section is listed as a DC 15

Ah, is it? I missed that when I went to the table.

Glad they have that! That's actually enough, since it's 10 gp for a DC 15 lock, I think we can extrapolate from there.

I'd probably go 100 gp for a Hard lock (DC 20), and 500 gp for a Very Hard lock (DC 25). We're getting into magic items when we get to Nigh Impossible.

Conversely, an Easy lock (DC 10) is probably 1 gp, and only a few copper to silver for simple windowlatches that just about anybody could pick with the right tool and a little determination.

[AdAstra]

I think a bigger question with lockpicking should less be the quality of the locks (since there's a reasonable excuse for just about any DC imaginable, from rusty internals to exotic designs that the picker isn't used to), but the amount of time taken.

I've found an interesting possible mechanic.

Your first check takes one round. This represents your ability to pick the lock in a snap.

Your second check takes 1 minute, including the time taken by the first check.

Your third check takes 5 minutes, including the time taken by the first and second checks.

Fourth check takes 15, every check thereafter takes double the time of the previous, including the time taken by previous checks (so 30 minutes, 1 hour, then 2)

This allows you to pick locks fast and allow re-checks (which logically you should be able to), without making locks take a trivial amount of time. Since each extra check effectively gives an exponential increase to your chances of success, I think this is fair.

I think this exponential system could be very useful when applied to other tasks as well, like disarming traps (assuming you don't trigger them), or breaking down barriers.

[jjordan]

I picked lock-picking because it's common task that I'm familiar with. But I think I would pursue a compromise course in regards to the aim of this thread. I would have a common set of conditional modifiers and a common format for defining a standard task. So, to take my lock-picking example and abstract it to all tasks (except creation/crafting) it might look like this:


Task: Lock-picking, DC15, Dexterity (Thieves'/Locksmith's Tools), 10 minutes. Opening a non-magical lock without the use of the key(s) provided for it.

Where were we have the name of the task followed by the DC for a Moderate/Standard example of the task followed by the applicable Skill/Tool grouping, followed by the time it takes to do the standard task, and finishing with a very brief description of what the task does.

To each iteration of the task (any task) we could add the abstracted conditional modifiers.


Time:

-6 Standard Task Time/10
-3 Standard Task Time/2
0 Standard Task Time
+3 Standard Task Time*2
+6 Standard Task Time*10

Resources:

-2 Improvised Tools/Scant Resources
0 General Tools/Adequate Resources
+2 Exact Tools/Abundant Resources

Conditions:

-2 Horrible
-1 Poor
0 Average
+1 Good
+2 Excellent

Task Difficulty: (This is where we modify for the complexity of the task)

+10 Rudimentary
+5 Simple
0 Regular
-5 Tricky
-10 Complex

Going back to climbing I could have:


Task: Climbing, DC 10, Strength (Athletics, Climbing Tools), 150 ft per 1 minute. Climbing up inclined surfaces that cannot be walked up.

Which isn't perfect. As AdAstra points out sometimes you get lucky. I remember reading an article about the World Lockpicking Championship where one of the competitors, when faced with a really difficult lock, gave a really fast (but super low probability of success) technique a try. And it worked. Not sure how to encapsulate that unless I added a task results table. If you greatly exceed the DC you cut down on the time? Get some other exceptional success? That's already an optional rule in the DMG.

[Tanarii]

Don't forget if you take 10 times as long you should automatically succeed as long as it's possible and there are no consequences for failure.

[AdAstra]

Don't forget if you take 10 times as long you should automatically succeed as long as it's possible and there are no consequences for failure.

I mean, is that an actual rule? Furthermore, there are plenty of instances where the probability of success doesn't really scale exponentially with time like that system implies. I would say that lockpicking falls more into the category of "it's possible for you to get it right in 6 seconds, but if not it'll probably take a good bit longer". In this case the extra time for each successive check doesn't represent you "trying" for six seconds at a time in ever-increasing intervals. It represents you failing, then attempting more time-consuming techniques or going more slowly.

[jjordan]

I mean, is that an actual rule?
Yep. Right out of the DMG. Another issue with my setup. I suppose there could be two or three time tables and the task description specifies which one to use. And it's not as if the tables are required to be symmetrical.

[AdAstra]

Yep. Right out of the DMG. Another issue with my setup. I suppose there could be two or three time tables and the task description specifies which one to use. And it's not as if the tables are required to be symmetrical.

Huh, where in the DMG is it? That sounds more like a recommendation than a hard and fast rule.

[Segev]

Huh, where in the DMG is it? That sounds more like a recommendation than a hard and fast rule.

Recommendations are really all I'm even asking for, so when the DMG provides one, it at least gives me a starting point. My biggest gripe is the lack of even that much.

[AdAstra]

Recommendations are really all I'm even asking for, so when the DMG provides one, it at least gives me a starting point. My biggest gripe is the lack of even that much.

Okay so DMG pg. 237. I definitely don't think this really applies very well to lockpicking, at least not in all instances. The idea that any lock you have any chance at all to pick in six seconds can always be picked in one minute feels off. Makes thieve's tools kind of a cure-all for most locks. A rogue without TT expertise could pick an Impossible lock in 1 minute by level 13. Expertise makes this achievable at level 5. At the very minimum it should take about 15 minutes to take 20 a lock, which definitely requires that you have some sort increasing interval between checks.

...That actually gives me an idea. What if we made a "task" list that described how much time it takes to Take 10 or Take 20 for a given task, and describe what tasks wouldn't allow that?

[Tanarii]

It definitely applies to lock picking. It applies to remembering something as well. If you set a DC and it's possible to do the thing over and over again making a check until you succeed, then it applies. Unless something changes that stops you from doing it over and over again, a state change. The default assumption isn't "one check and done". (Edit: of course you can if you so choose, define something as a "state of the characters capability" check, and make it one and done for each character. Or a "state of the world" check, is this door forcable by anyone, one character checks and if they fail no one else can check either.)

Where there is leeway is in how you define "if it's possible".

One way to define it is the wishy-washy 5e way, DM rules (and technically player agrees) if it's something the PC can accomplish at all. If you never knew something, you can't recall it. If it's an unpick able lock, you can't pick it.

The other way is something akin to 3e, treat it as aa take 20 rule. If you can make the check with a 20, you take ten times as long and automatically succeed.

I'll be honest I go back and forth.

Either way, it's supposed to be a timesaver rule. Just like passive checks.

Passive checks time save rolling over and over again with any one roll being actually against a DC. Instead you just assume a 10.

Automatic success time saves rolling over and over against the same thing until you succeed. Instead you just assume success and take ten times as long. (This is why treating it as "take 20" makes some kind of sense.)

(Edit2: you seem to be assuming all locks take 1/10th of a minute to pick. Maybe there's a rule somewhere on that I've been ignoring, but I just define each locks picking time based on complexity, along with the DC.)

[AdAstra]

It definitely applies to lock picking. It applies to remembering something as well. If you set a DC and it's possible to do the thing over and over again making a check until you succeed, then it applies. Unless something changes that stops you from doing it over and over again, a state change. The default assumption isn't "one check and done". (Edit: of course you can if you so choose, define something as a "state of the characters capability" check, and make it one and done for each character. Or a "state of the world" check, is this door forcable by anyone, one character checks and if they fail no one else can check either.)

Where there is leeway is in how you define "if it's possible".

One way to define it is the wishy-washy 5e way, DM rules (and technically player agrees) if it's something the PC can accomplish at all. If you never knew something, you can't recall it. If it's an unpick able lock, you can't pick it.

The other way is something akin to 3e, treat it as aa take 20 rule. If you can make the check with a 20, you take ten times as long and automatically succeed.

I'll be honest I go back and forth.

Either way, it's supposed to be a timesaver rule. Just like passive checks.

Passive checks time save rolling over and over again with any one roll being actually against a DC. Instead you just assume a 10.

Automatic success time saves rolling over and over against the same thing until you succeed. Instead you just assume success and take ten times as long. (This is why treating it as "take 20" makes some kind of sense.)

(Edit2: you seem to be assuming all locks take 1/10th of a minute to pick. Maybe there's a rule somewhere on that I've been ignoring, but I just define each locks picking time based on complexity, along with the DC.)

Ok the idea of any sort of Take 20 rule applying to memory or knowledge seems even more odd to me. For most memory rolls, I tend to assume auto-success if it's an important or obvious detail. Having any DC at all mostly just ends up punishing players with bad memory, if it even does anything whatsoever. Strictly speaking the players could just claim their characters write down everything important. For obscure things, or instances of "did I ever learn about this?", Take 20 also makes very little sense. No one remembers or learns everything of a given "difficulty" (in this case DC). Memory just isn't consistent like that, and neither is learning. Just because two details are DC 15 doesn't mean that you're guaranteed to know both.

If locks take different amounts of time to pick, then that should be specifically listed in the descriptions of any tables we make. That could work, but I'd rather that sort of thing be rare, since I want there to always be the possibility of doing it fast. I want there to be a chance to pick most locks in one turn without making it so that most locks can be picked in 1 minute guaranteed.

[Tanarii]

Personally when I cant remember something immediately, taking ten times as long to think about it very often results in my remembering.

[Segev]

Personally when I cant remember something immediately, taking ten times as long to think about it very often results in my remembering.

Depends what it is, for me. Sometimes that works; sometimes it doesn't. I would bet that the difference is whether I merely needed a high roll, or couldn't succeed even on a nat 20.

[AdAstra]

Memory is far more hit-or-miss in most cases, at least for me. I frequently end up in a rut and can’t remember, and if there are other things to attend to, it’s not likely to happen. In my mind, the roll is not deciding whether you can retrieve the memory, but whether it’s something you ever remembered in the first place, or whether you have the right cues/context. Or remembering something incorrect/inaccurate.

[Tanarii]

Memory is far more hit-or-miss in most cases, at least for me. I frequently end up in a rut and can’t remember, and if there are other things to attend to, it’s not likely to happen. In my mind, the roll is not deciding whether you can retrieve the memory, but whether it’s something you ever remembered in the first place, or whether you have the right cues/context. Or remembering something incorrect/inaccurate.
That's what I like to call a state-of-the-character check. The check isn't remembering something you know in a stressful situation when it's immediately applicable. It's a check to determine if your character knows the info. That's what a lot of people think 'Knowledge' checks are.

Similarly some folks think a lock pick check represents if you are skilled enough to pick this lock. Again, a state-of-the-character check.

There's some issues when you're dealing with something external, and you make it the state-of-a-character check. Most commonly it bothers a lot of people that one character with a high bonus can fail, then another with effectively no bonus gets lucky on their roll succeeds. Some folks have trouble with 'Knoweldge' checks done that way as well, if every PC gets to roll to determine if they 'know' the info.

[AdAstra]

There's some issues when you're dealing with something external, and you make it the state-of-a-character check. Most commonly it bothers a lot of people that one character with a high bonus can fail, then another with effectively no bonus gets lucky on their roll succeeds. Some folks have trouble with 'Knoweldge' checks done that way as well, if every PC gets to roll to determine if they 'know' the info.

But, that's just objectively how learning works? No matter how smart/well educated you are, if you didn't learn something and have no way of figuring it out through reasoning, then you can't know it, and no education covers everything. At the same time, it's very well possible that any random schmuck could have heard/read about it somewhere. Not everyone with History proficiency and +3 Int learns exactly the same things about history. Education is not linear scale. Two college grads will likely have notably different knowledge sets, especially at the higher end, because such things are quite specialized.

The issue of joe barbarian getting a nat 20 is why DM discretion should always be used with skills. If learning something would have required a formal education, and joe was not formally or even informally educated, at minimum he should make the check at disadvantage. In many cases he shouldn't be able to make the roll at all, since there's no way he would have ever encountered the information. There's no wikipedia or trivia sites in most fantasy worlds. Acquiring random knowledge is mostly in the form of rumors and conversations. A DM is well within reason to say that there's no way that a farm boy from fantasy Kansas has any knowledge of arctic wildlife.

[Tanarii]

Sure. But now we're talking about different DCs for something that's the same task/check based on DM judgement of the various circumstances ...

Which is how you end up with the current 5e system. :smallamused:

Or, to stay vaguely in topic, we're talking abot carefully defining which tasks are state-of-world, state-of-character, or success-in-the-moment tasks. For the state ones we give some guidelines as to DM modifiers, for example for state-of-character "no previous experience disadvantage , extensive experience advantage" would be a simple enough guideline.

[Unavenger]

I could have sworn I'd seen someone do this before and it turns out it's because I've seen someone do this before (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?536749-5e-Ability-Skill-and-Tool-Use-DCs). Not sure if helpful but I figured I'd link.

[Tanarii]

I could have sworn I'd seen someone do this before and it turns out it's because I've seen someone do this before (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?536749-5e-Ability-Skill-and-Tool-Use-DCs). Not sure if helpful but I figured I'd link.
Actually it kind of is. That poster went through the other checks (eg without proficiency) and skills examples in the ability scores section PHB and assigned DCs to them. That seems like the best approach.

I also like how clean and simple the tables all. Not an attempt to make everything a check with lots of complicated modifiers 3e SRD style.

Edit: they set the DCs way too high though. Things that should be automatic are Easy (DC 10) or Medium (DC 15) in some cases.

[Max_Killjoy]

Actually it kind of is. That poster went through the other checks (eg without proficiency) and skills examples in the ability scores section PHB and assigned DCs to them. That seems like the best approach.

I also like how clean and simple the tables all. Not an attempt to make everything a check with lots of complicated modifiers 3e SRD style.

Edit: they set the DCs way too high though. Things that should be automatic are Easy (DC 10) or Medium (DC 15) in some cases.

And that ties back into my gripe about the DC assigned to each descriptor, or the descriptor assigned to each DC, being misleading. It's like the came up with a list of words and a list of DCs, put each in order, and lined them up next to each other, without even thinking about it.

[AdAstra]

I think we probably need to get back on topic, AKA actually fixing or discussing fixes for these things. Everyone’s discussed at length about what problems they have with 5e’s skill system (or don’t have, in my case) in the “why the hate” thread. I think I’ll look into making a more in depth knowledge check guide.

[AdAstra]

Okay, here goes, rough draft time.

Knowledge checks may be used to determine whether a character has learned of something in the past, or whether they can discover or determine such information through other resources, such as libraries. The type of information a character wants to access should use a skill appropriate to the nature of the information. In many cases, it makes sense for a character to simply know information without a check, if it's highly improbable for them never having learned it. Information that there is no way for a character to have ever learned is also unattainable through a knowledge check.



DC 10- Basic history or information

DC 15- Specific facts or more obscure general history

DC 20- Very specific information or history

DC Modifiers

-5- You know the subject, area, or entity well through proximity or publicity.

-5- You have access to a some sort of repository of information generally relating to the subject, area, or entity. Note: if the players know exactly what they are looking for and the repository has it, you can generally assume they can find it without a check, unless it is particularly difficult to parse through, like a massive library or poorly translated texts.

+5- The subject, area, or entity is one you would have little familiarity with. It may be far away, not well known by the public, or not well studied/understood by academics.

+5- The desired knowledge must be deduced from other available information. There exists little to no direct written record or study of the subject, area, or entity, and anyone who might know is unavailable or unwilling. Note: If there was never any record or knowledgeable individual whatsoever, then typically no check is sufficient to acquire the information. However, it may still be possible to determine it indirectly from other information.