So what SHOULD the Skill DC Table look like?

[Pleh]

In the other thread (and previous threads), it's been nitpicked ad nauseam that the DMG or PHB should have included a table of Skill DCs to illustrate for uncertain DMs how difficult tasks should be.

So why don't we make one together? Right here. Compile a nice handy reference of DC tables that DMs can bookmark for their games.

What do you think?

[Millstone85]

As a possible starting point, here are XGtE's proficiency-related tables.Alchemist's supplies
10 Create a puff of thick smoke
10 Identify a poison
15 Identify a substance
15 Start a fire
20 Neutralize acid

Brewer's supplies
10 Detect poison or impurities in a drink
15 Identify alcohol
20 Ignore effects of alcohol

Calligrapher's supplies
10 Identify writer of magical script
15 Determine writer's state of mind
15 Spot forged text
20 Forge a signature

Carpenter's tools
10 Build a simple wooden structure
15 Design a complex wooden structure
15 Find a weak point in a wooden wall
20 Pry apart a door

Cartographer's tools
10 Determine a map's age and origin
15 Estimate direction and distance from a landmark
15 Discern that a map is fake
20 Fill in a missing part of a map

Cobbler's tools
10 Determine a shoe's age and origin
15 Find a hidden compartment in a boot heel

Cook's ustensils
10 Create a typical meal
10 Duplicate a meal
15 Spot poison or impurities in food
15 Create a gourmet meal

Disguise kit
10 Cover injuries or distinguishing marks
15 Spot a disguise being used by someone else
20 Copy a humanoid's appearance

Forgery kit
15 Mimic handwriting
20 Duplicate a wax seal

Gaming set
15 Catch a player cheating
15 Gain insight into an opponent's personality

Glassblower's tools
10 Identify source of glass
20 Determine what a glass object once held

Herbalism kit
15 Find plants
20 Identify poison

Jeweler's tools
15 Modify a gem's appearance
20 Determine a gem's history

Land and water vehicles
10 Navigate rough terrains and water
15 Asses a vehicle's condition
20 Take a tight corner at high speed

Leatherworker's tools
10 Modify a leather item's appearance
20 Determine a leather item's history

Mason's tools
10 Chisel a small hole in a stone wall
20 Find a weak point in a stone wall

Musical instruments
10 Identify a tune
20 Improvise a tune

Navigator's tools
10 Plot a course
15 Discover your position on a nautical chart

Painter's supplies
10 Paint an accurate portrait
20 Create a painting with a hidden message

Poisoner's kit
10 Spot a poisoned object
20 Determine the effects of a poison

Potter's tools
10 Determine what a vessel once held
15 Create a serviceable pot
20 Find a weak point in a ceramic object

Smith's tools
10 Sharpen a dull blade
15 Repair a suit of armor
15 Sunder a nonmagical metal object

Thieves' tools
?? Pick a lock
?? Disable a trap

Tinker's tools
10 Temporarily repair a disabled device
15 Repair an item in half the time
20 Improvise a temporary item using scraps

Weaver's tools
10 Repurpose cloth
10 Mend a hole in a piece of cloth
15 Tailor an outfit

Woodcarver's tools
10 Create a small wooden figurine
15 Create an intricate pattern in wood

[Tanarii]

Reference to the thread last October, also promoted by the rehashed argument:
https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?600950-Developing-Example-Skill-DCs-for-5e

I think we got as far as nailing down "Climbing" use of Athletics before it petered out so there's plenty more to go.

Edit:
Also this: https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?536749-5e-Ability-Skill-and-Tool-Use-DCs

[Man_Over_Game]

I'm of the opinion that skills should scale exponentially with difficulty or level.

The reasons for this is threefold:

Magic also competes for the space for "noncombat utility", while generally being less of an investment than skills. Alarm is a Ritual Spell that might be able to be duplicated with a very high Survival roll and a lucrative DM, except I can always choose to swap Alarm out for something else to suit what I need each day/level, but I'll never be able to swap out Survival. Alarm also has a guaranteed chance of success (on the initial action, anyway), while Survival does not. This is one niche example, but similar comparisons can be made across multiple skills, spells, and levels. Attacks can fill the niche of "being more efficient for damage over time" when it comes to competition against magic, but most players would not state that skills are more efficient than magic when it comes to utility, and not when a skill may be relevant only once per session/day.

Skills are limited by same AC/DC issues that Attacks are bottlenecked through. Since the AC/DC system of 5e was designed around lower level creatures succeeding against higher level creatures through Bounded Accuracy, a level 1 hero's skill usage is barely worse than a level 20's (going from rolling a DC 15 50% of the time to rolling a DC 20 50% of the time). The difference is, Attacks use damage for scaling, while Skills still have to rely on the DC for determining effectiveness. We know this is stupid and broken at later levels, because that's how AC/Hit scaling is in combat at those same levels (which become balanced through damage scaling instead). Skills lack the equalizer that is damage.
In a way, Skills are a lot like the THAC0 system, in that your ability to hit is the same as your reward for doing so, which doesn't work when Hit/Miss is just a Yes/No without scaling on the degree of success.


Skills are always going to have a bias towards the mundane, since the theory is that "anyone" could attempt a skill roll, and you don't want peasants to be able to show up your heroes. Since a DC 20 isn't out of anyone's reach, it can't be that exceptional, right? That makes sense, except a level 20 hero still has a decent chance to fail that DC 20 without some expensive investments. Making skills overly effective will help fight the human bias to dial them back.




So with all that in mind, I'd prefer a DC table that has extraordinary feats at higher levels (like a DC 25 Medicine Check brings someone back from the dead, Franken-style), and requires multiple rolls for success (that is, use 3 DC 15's instead of a single DC 20) as this statistically favors those who invest into it (level 20 Rogues) and punishes those who don't (Level 1 Peasants).

If I roll a DC 20 x3, I should turn invisible. At the point where a character could roll that, a Wizard could cast Invisibility without a second thought, so why can't I?
Why would it be such a high Athletics check to get the equivalent to the Jump spell as a Barbarian? It's a level 1 spell that's worth so little consideration that not even casters pick it up.

Surpassing level 1 and level 2 spells shouldn't be so difficult with skills, not when considering the investment and random chance involved, and not when I could just do those things with just 3 levels into a caster.

[Segev]

Skills are limited by same AC/DC issues that Attacks are bottlenecked through. Since the AC/DC system of 5e was designed around lower level creatures succeeding against higher level creatures through Bounded Accuracy, a level 1 hero's skill usage is barely worse than a level 20's (going from rolling a DC 15 50% of the time to rolling a DC 20 50% of the time). The difference is, Attacks use damage for scaling, while Skills still have to rely on the DC for determining effectiveness. We know this is stupid and broken at later levels, because that's how AC/Hit scaling is in combat at those same levels (which become balanced through damage scaling instead). Skills lack the equalizer that is damage.


Skills are always going to have a bias towards the mundane, since the theory is that "anyone" could attempt a skill roll, and you don't want peasants to be able to show up your heroes. Since a DC 20 isn't out of anyone's reach, it can't be that exceptional, right? That makes sense, except a level 20 hero still has a decent chance to fail that DC 20 without some expensive investments.
These two points could be addressed by a system for designing encounters with multiple skill checks needed. Preferably with none being a single point of success or failure. That is, you don't lose by failing "any one" of them, nor do you win by succeeding "any one" of them.

Not 4e's generic "get 3 successes before 3 failures" thing, either. But actually designed things where performing skill checks successfully can get you advanced towards the encounter goal, and failing them leaves you where you started. Or even sets you back, if the skill check is forced by "enemy action."

So, really, we have two kinds of skill checks in such encounters: offensive and defensive, so to speak. Offensive checks are things you're doing to try to advance your position "on the board." Defensive checks are responses to things the enemy (whatever form it takes) has done to set you back; success on these holds your position.

Any check, regardless of success or failure, should change the board state in some fashion, though offensive checks' failures are the most acceptable time for it to have no effect on the board state.

This is about encounter design philosophy, though, more than setting DCs.


So with all that in mind, I'd prefer a DC table that has extraordinary feats at higher levels (like a DC 25 Medicine Check brings someone back from the dead, Franken-style), and requires multiple rolls for success (that is, use 3 DC 15's instead of a single DC 20) as this statistically favors those who invest into it and punishes those who don't (like level 1 peasants).
This could be helpful and useful, but all I really want out of a DC table is 1-2 examples for each primary DC (10, 15, 20, 30; maybe 5 and 25) of what kinds of activities using that particular skill are that DC.

The tool ones from Xanathar's are perfectly fine to me.

[stoutstien]

The tool ones from Xanathar's are perfectly fine to me.

i like the idea of the ones provided in XGtE but they are haphazard because they don't use any ability as a base, which is a good move, but set the DC assuming there is one. so you end up with a blacksmith that has a really good chance of not being able to sharpen a blade until they have a large prof bonus. This is something that IMO isn't even close to something that needs a check to begin with let alone a 60-70% of failure.

*How did they miss silvering weapons/ ammunition as a DC example. it's one of the things players realistically are going to want to do as soon as possible.*

[Dienekes]

i like the idea of the ones provided in XGtE but they are haphazard because they don't use any ability as a base, which is a good move, but set the DC assuming there is one. so you end up with a blacksmith that has a really good chance of not being able to sharpen a blade until they have a large prof bonus. This is something that IMO isn't even close to something that needs a check to begin with let alone a 60-70% of failure.

*How did they miss silvering weapons/ ammunition as a DC example. it's one of the things players realistically are going to want to do as soon as possible.*

This is tangential to the discussion. But I've been using The Professional class that "solves" some of the problem.

The Professional is essentially a level 1 Peasant however they get the following benefits to skills necessary for their profession, and only those skills.

Trainee: Prof +2
Apprentice: Prof +4
Professional: Prof +6 Reliable Talent Lesser (can't roll less than 7)
Master: Prof +8 Reliable Talent Lesser (can't roll less than 7)
Grand Master: Prof +10 Reliable Talent
That mystical greatest of all time guy that lives on a mountain or something: Prof +12 Reliable Talent Greater (can't roll less than 13)

That said, yes, I do agree that the skill values are not really made by people who know what they're talking about.

Sharpening a blade should be about a DC 5 max (I have seen people mess it up, but mostly only people on their first few tries).