The problem with 5e's skill system and how to fix it

[Bosh]

Going to take a while to get to my point but I think it's an important one, bear with me.

I asked my son (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?616885-My-son-wants-to-draw-your-character) why he likes D&D so much better than board games and he told me "in D&D you can do anything." And that really gets to the root of what makes RPGs so great. I've played D&D with kids who didn't get in character AT ALL and they still loved it because they could do anything they wanted.

But it's obviously impossible to make rules for EVERYTHING. One problem that RPGs have been grappling with for decades is how you play a game in which you can do anything you want when you can't make rules for all of that. RPGs have come at the problem in the following ways:

1. Narrow rules Each rule does one specific thing in a cut and dry way. For example in 1ed D&D you had a specific chance to bend bards or lift gates and you wrote that down on your character sheet. If you tried to bend some bars or lift a gate you knew exactly what chance you had of doing that. The problem with narrow rules is they're, well, narrow. Each only covers one specific thing you can do so if you try to make a game out of narrow rules you'll have a ruleset that is full of holes where no rules exist. Some games with narrow rules try to set up guardrails around those gaping holes by giving players set options while others encourage players to jump into those holes by encouraging GM fiat. Having a ruleset that's full of "I don't know, make some **** up" annoys people for obvious reasons.

2. Abstract rules These rules try to solve the problem with narrow rules by making each rule cover more ground. I've seen a lot of games in which what weapon you use doesn't matter at all, you just roll your Weapon skill or what have you. Every game has SOME level of abstraction, even games based on narrow rules but how much can vary wildly from game to came. The most extreme version of abstract rules I've seen is a storygame called Shock. In that game you have two skills (which can be anything) and they have to add up to 10. If you face a challenge you choose which of your two skills applies and you roll a d10 and try to roll under your skill. That's it. There are no modifiers and the specifics of the scene never matter. And that's kind of the problem with abstract rules. They make a lot of things not matter. If you set up a cunning plan that's based on a lot of moving parts and then have all of those abstracted away to a straight skill roll that can be very annoying.

3. Vague rules These rules try to fix the problems of narrow and abstract rules by leaning on the DM. There are a bunch of rules about what bonuses you can add to the roll but the target that you're rolling AGAINST basically boils down to "the GM pulls a number out of their ass." This gives the game enormous flexibility since ass pulls can cover just about anything. However there are also a lot of problems with building a ruleset on a foundation of asspulls. The main thing is players never really know exactly what the stuff on their character sheet can DO. Sure I can crunch the numbers and figure out that I have a 75% change of succeeding at a medium task with X skills and a 50% of succeeding at a hard task of X skill but what the hell are medium and hard tasks in the first place? They also vary enormously from GM to GM which means that certain characters can vary wildly in power from table to table.

Another problem with abstract and vague rules is that since they don't nail down what players can actually do, you sometimes get players waving their biggest modifier in the general direction of the problem instead of thinking of a plan that makes sense in terms of the world that the players are playing in.

Now what the hell does all this have to do with 5e skills?

Well let's look at what kind of rules the various bits of 5e D&D has. Well advantage is a thick film of abstraction that covers everything, but that affects everything equally. Combat is mostly pretty narrow. There are certain things you can do and there are cut and dried rules for doing them. 5e D&D has no Page 42 like in 4e for handling things that fall into the holes between the narrow rules, there are pretty hard lines between "there is a set rule for that" and "dunno, have you DM make something up" with very little that is vague (remember, having a vague rule and no rule at all are different). There is a good bit of abstraction of course, but 5e combat is pretty cut and dried and narrow.

Now lets look at magic, while not as nailed down as 4e abilities (or even 3.5ed spells in a lot of cases) in terms of what spells do, spells are also pretty narrow. Each spell is one specific narrow thing you can do. The good thing about a magic system is that it's OK for it to be full of holes. Magic doesn't HAVE to do everything so having a whole slew of narrow rules works fine since each spell does one specific thing. And I think that's a good thing, having gameplay like "you have a +6 modifier to fire magic, you roll this against a DC that the GM determines to do Stuff with fire" would be a big headache in the middle of a fight. I like knowing the radius and damage my fireballs can do, lets me make plans around them.

Now let's look at skills. Old school D&D mostly had a few spindly narrow rules laid out over a gaping chasm of DM fiat, 3.5ed was a mix of narrow and vague, 4e moved to abstract with skill challenges and 5e is mostly a big fat ball of vague. And that's a problem. Combat mechanics and spells are mostly concrete specific things you can do while skills just AREN'T. It's a lot harder to build a plan based on skills than based on spells since you KNOW what a spell can do, it's laid out clearly, but you never know exactly what your skills are capable of which makes it a lot harder to make a cunning plan based on your skill use. This especially makes it harder for non spell casters to get involved in fun Combat as War shenanigans (https://www.enworld.org/threads/very-long-combat-as-sport-vs-combat-as-war-a-key-difference-in-d-d-play-styles.317715/) which can lead to a yawning gulf in power some campaigns. I've played in some combat light arcs where there is barely any fighting and in those the casters are CONSTANTLY doing amazing things with their magic that martials just can't compete with with their vague skill rules.

OK, so how to fix this.

Simple. Make skill rules as narrow as combat and spell rules. A ruleset should really be consistent within itself and it causes a lot of problems when one chunk of the rules is set up in a way that's fundamentally different than another chunk.

How I'd go about this is chuck the existing skill system in the trash and then write up a slew of skill Proficiencies, Specializations and Masteries. Write up a whole big pile of them, much like there is a big pile of spells, have different classes qualify for different ones and have them each do one specific thing. Then give martials big gobbing heaps of them to help narrow the gap between them and casters. Then to keep Int from being such a dump stat, give some bonus ones for Int. Backgrounds would provide specific Proficiencies of course. Of course all of this would open up holes in the rules, but that's what you get when you use narrow rules.

Now what would these Proficiencies do?

-Let you do specific things with narrow well-defined mechanical implications vs. other characters with a set DC you can look up by looking at their stat block. A good example of this would be Grapple. A Grapple proficiency would let you do Grapple and Shove actions with a proficiency bonus vs. the str/dex of the target (with proficiency bonus if applicable). If you don't have the proficiency then you don't get the bonus. Simple enough, works just like hitting people with a sword. Grapple Specialization and Masteries would provide additional benefits (possibly branching into a grapple tree) such as pushing people farther, damage when you grapple people, being able to grapple bigger targets, etc. etc. This could apply to social skills as well with a slew of conditions being applied on targets depending on the proficiency.

-You can do a thing! Works just like those at-will warlock invocations. You can do a thing, no roll, no check, no limit, it's just a thing you can do that's utterly reliable. This could cover things like "swim." Your swim speed goes up. Boom! Done! Also things like learning languages, being literate or ventriloquism (I always liked that NWP in 2ed). This could cover more powerful things with specializations and masteries like not being impeded by difficult terrain (like Legolas on the snow) or even being able to walk across things that shouldn't be able to bear your weight like sprinting across water or balancing yourself with one toe on the end of a thin branch. Again, lots of options. But starting players would only have a few to begin with, just like spell casters only get a few spells to begin with so nobody gets overwhelmed by a gazillion options. Maaaaaaaaaaaybe put in some really powerful options that cost a level of exhaustion or a hit dice to use (since they require you to push yourself to your limit).

-You can do a thing with a set difficulty. Instead of having do rely on a DM asspull, you get to do certain things with a nailed down difficulty that never changes. Unusual circumstances can be handled with advantage and disadvantage like always. I think knowledge and social skills could work well here. Knowledge skills are hella vague in 5e so to make them more narrow I'd steal a page from the Apocalypse World family games and have each knowledge skill provide certain specific questions you can ask the DM and get an answer. For example there's a set DC to getting a question answered (with high rolls getting you more than one question) and depending on what proficiencies you have you can ask questions like (to steal from Dungeon World): What happened here recently? What is about to happen? What should I be on the lookout for? What here is useful or valuable to me? Who’s really in control here? What here is not what it appears to be? Whom do you serve? What do you wish I would do? How can I get you to _____? What are you really feeling right now? What do you most desire? Who will notice it’s missing? What’s its most powerful defense? Who will come after it? Who else wants it? What here is weak or vulnerable? Being able to ask those kind of questions a lot is HELLA powerful. But then knowledge skill monkeys SHOULD be hella powerful. Apply advantage or disadvantage and you get nailed down specific narrow knowledge checks with just a bit of abstraction.

Think I'm on the right track here?

[Man_Over_Game]

There's a lot of problems from all sorts of directions. The more rules you add to do a thing, the more you take away from the options for other people to roleplay that thing.


Take, for example, the Assassin's level 9 and 13 features, which are things that you'd expect anyone be able to do at those levels. So can anyone disguise themselves as someone else, or do you have to be an Assassin? Sure, that's not much of an issue if you don't plan on having that content in your game, but it doesn't help if it is.

I had a similar situation where my party got mad at me because I wouldn't let them take a Search Action as a Bonus Action, because that's explicitly an Inquisitive Rogue feature, and our Rogue had plans to be exactly that. He was one that felt frustrated, too!

I think part of the problem in 5e, or DnD in general, is that you're constantly required to make choices between different aspects of play, despite those aspects not really naturally interacting or competing with one another. I can spend a feat on Actor to improve my roleplaying interaction, or I can spend a feat on Polearm Master to improve my combat interaction, but why do I have to choose one to invest in? Why do I have to sacrifice my combat prowess to make roleplaying more interesting? Why does that make the game better? It implies that all elements of the game are equal in value, when that certainly isn't true.

It's not a problem for a Warlock, who can sell all of its damage for utility and vice versa to match the table trends, but it becomes a big problem when you're like the Ranger and you don't have that choice.


Take, for example, the Search Action vs. the Attack Action. Rarely have I known anyone to take the Search Action in combat, yet it's supposedly equal in value to the Attack Action (as it's equal in cost).

The game has 3 different subsystems that you have to invest in and generally don't interact with one another, between:


Attack
Magic
Skills

They all have roughly the same costs, in terms of action economy and in terms of investment (between class features, feats, and magical effects). However, how valuable they are is extremely variable when comparing one another. They are also usually mutually exclusive, as picking a Fighter means you have worse skills and spells, taking the Cast a Spell Action prevents you from taking the Attack Action or Search Action, etc.

I think that's the starting point. Either find a way to make skills consistently as valuable as the Attack or Magic subsystems, or simply just implement them in a way where you don't have to make a choice. For example, Languages do not get in the way of your build, because there's no notable cost of investing towards them, they do not interact much with other elements of gameplay, and using them doesn't stop you from doing something else. They are, in a way, balanced only against themselves. Having Draconic as a language will rarely influence your Combat abilities or encounters, or what spells you cast and how efficient they are (this isn't 100% accurate to my example, since you can only get more languages through a feat, but it's such an obscure feat choice that it's easy to forget that it exists).

Skills could be done in the same way. That is, have no implementation of skills that can get in the way of attacking or magic1. No skill feats. No skill actions. In fact, just add a "Skill Action" on top of your other Action Economy resources, and allow everyone to use a skill every single turn.

Because the alternative is figuring out how Expertise on History checks are supposed to balance against the -5/+10 from GWM, and good ****ing luck with that.

So that's it. Make it equal to your other options, or implement them in a way where they can't compare.

Put another way, right now some have apples (Fighters, Barbarians), others have oranges (Rogues, Bards). The only way you lose is by having to compare apples to oranges. Either turn all oranges into apples (this is how FATE does it), or just give everyone exactly equal amounts of both (kinda how 4th edition does it).

1: By this, I do not mean have no interaction between the two. You should be able to add an Athletics Check for a jump-attack. What should not exist are things like Action-replacements that use a skill value (Grapple/Shove), or the choice of picking a feat to improve a skill OR an attack. At no point should picking one remove your options for picking the other. This does mean that all classes would have roughly the same number of skills and combat features, which does put the Rogue in an awkward place.

[Kyutaru]

So set difficulties was a thing that 3rd edition featured for many skills. It actually led to abuse by RAW players who insisted that they could become an unstoppable Diplomancer. When there's a set result and your players min-max to achieve it then they get something fairly reliable that they can use all the time. Which is great until they find a way to exploit it. With no DM fiat encouraged the response is either to shut them down by ignoring the rules or to allow them to have their way with your campaign world.

I'm more a fan of how Vampire handles skills with tiers. You could have up to five ranks in the skill. Each rank had a narrative description like one level in Fire might light a candle, two levels might be a cone of burning hands, three levels might be a huge fireball, four levels might torch a house, and five levels might be a raging inferno. Most skill checks didn't need a roll because you knew what you could do already but when opposition or failure or some RNG is needed you would roll a number dice based on how many levels you have hoping to generate success results. A number of success results are needed to pass the check, which can vary depending on whether the DM thinks it's easy or not. It's a combination of vague rules and You Can Do a Thing! Since you're really only rolling when opposed it's less about vague nonsense and more about Enemy Skills vs Your Skills the Test. Or testing against yourself to see if the random forces of the universe were controllable to let you sufficiently stunt drive through this busy street with no issues.

[Bosh]

@Man_Over_Game have to run to work soonish, your post has a lot to chew on, will hit it when I have the time to do it justice.


So set difficulties was a thing that 3rd edition featured for many skills. It actually led to abuse by RAW players who insisted that they could become an unstoppable Diplomancer. When there's a set result and your players min-max to achieve it then they get something fairly reliable that they can use all the time. Which is great until they find a way to exploit it. With no DM fiat encouraged the response is either to shut them down by ignoring the rules or to allow them to have their way with your campaign world.

I'm more a fan of how Vampire handles skills with tiers. You could have up to five ranks in the skill. Each rank had a narrative description like one level in Fire might light a candle, two levels might be a cone of burning hands, three levels might be a huge fireball, four levels might torch a house, and five levels might be a raging inferno. Most skill checks didn't need a roll because you knew what you could do already but when opposition or failure or some RNG is needed you would roll a number dice based on how many levels you have hoping to generate success results. A number of success results are needed to pass the check, which can vary depending on whether the DM thinks it's easy or not. It's a combination of vague rules and You Can Do a Thing! Since you're really only rolling when opposed it's less about vague nonsense and more about Enemy Skills vs Your Skills the Test. Or testing against yourself to see if the random forces of the universe were controllable to let you sufficiently stunt drive through this busy street with no issues.

WRT 3.5ed I still get twitchy thinking of the intricacies of the 3.5ed climbing rules or how there were separate DCs for tumbling over even vs. uneven cobblestones so very much NOT THAT. WRT min-maxing, well obviously don't put in any abilities that'd break the game if the players regularly succeed at them (although 5e's flatter math is much harder to break than 3.5ed's). For example I'd put a hole in the rules for things like "convince the guy to do what I want" while letting social proficiencies be more about gathering information "What does this guy want?" "What is this guy feeling" etc. or smacking people with conditions (fear etc. etc.) than making them do certain things. Wouldn't want social skills to do anything to NPCs that we don't want the PCs being smacked with and "the NPC rolled really high so you have to do what he wants now" is off the table for most D&D groups, so the same would go the other way.

I'm thinking more 1ed thief skills (flat changes to do specific things) and the at-will warlock invocations (you can do a strictly defined Thing as often as you want).

For the WW stuff, that isn't so much of an issue in THAT game because everything works basically the same way. With 5e spells and combat works in a much much much less vague way than skills which can be a problem. Still WW skills are a bit more vague than I like since each skill can cover many different actions. I like OSR games enough that I like games with lots of holes in the rules a lot more than vague rules that cover everything, but don't like how a lot of OSR games either have so little to chew on with skills or tack on a pretty vague system to cover skills on top of the more narrow basic rules.

[Segev]

All I really think the 5e Ability Check system needs to make it fully functional is examples of "easy," "medium," "hard," and "nigh-impossible" actions for each of the Abilities, and possibly the skills. Put all the wiggle-room language you want in there about how it's not hard and fast, and that these are just examples. But that's all that's needed to make it fully functional.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

All I really think the 5e Ability Check system needs to make it fully functional is examples of "easy," "medium," "hard," and "nigh-impossible" actions for each of the Abilities, and possibly the skills. Put all the wiggle-room language you want in there about how it's not hard and fast, and that these are just examples. But that's all that's needed to make it fully functional.
I'd say this issue is compounded by the game breaking it's own bonded accuracy goal time and time again when it comes to skills. Probably the worst offender is the Pass Without Trace spell, which in combination with a Guidance Cantrip for the lumbering oaf in Plate Armor, basically makes all but the hardest stealth tasks automatic for the whole party. The result is that many DMs end up jacking up the targets beyond where they should be.

[Pex]

You're not wrong. I've been saying this for years. I take solace for the last couple of years I'm no longer the lone vocal voice talking about this as I was many years before. However, some people will insist DM fiat for DCs is absolutely fantastic. The thing is 5E does have defined DCs for non-combat events. There are DCs for object hardness and AC. There is even a DC table for NPC reactions using social skills, though it's hard to find in the DMG and frankly I don't think any DM I play with use it let alone even know it exists. Xanathar book introduced DC tables for tool use, so to say 5E could never have proper DC tables for skill use is wrong. They could have. They chose not to, and if never having been optioned in Unearthed Arcana is any indication, they never will. Some people applaud this. I think this was and is a mistake. I will be happily surprised if they ever do. It doesn't hurt anyone if they do. Those people who absolutely adore DM fiat for DCs may still do so, and the rest of us can have the benchmark guidelines we've been wanting since Day 1.

[Bosh]

There's a lot of problems from all sorts of directions. The more rules you add to do a thing, the more you take away from the options for other people to roleplay that thing.

I think rulesets do need holes in the them the same way that soil does, lets things breathe. But I don't think it's how many rules you have but how you set them up. For example, as a joke my friend made up a game called d2, the game's rule is that whenever a player tries to do something flip a coin and if you get heads they succeed. That's about as rules light as you can get but the rule covers EVERYTHING so a player can just bull their way through everything but flipping a coin. On the other end of the spectrum you have Phoenix Command which has a ludicrous level of combat detail but not much aside from that IIRC so there's plenty of room for freeform RP.


Take, for example, the Assassin's level 9 and 13 features, which are things that you'd expect anyone be able to do at those levels. So can anyone disguise themselves as someone else, or do you have to be an Assassin? Sure, that's not much of an issue if you don't plan on having that content in your game, but it doesn't help if it is.

Yeah, that's a big problem with a lot of class features and skills. The second you give anyone an ability then you de facto declare that nobody else can do that thing without that ability which eats away at a lot of other characters.


I think part of the problem in 5e, or DnD in general, is that you're constantly required to make choices between different aspects of play, despite those aspects not really naturally interacting or competing with one another. I can spend a feat on Actor to improve my roleplaying interaction, or I can spend a feat on Polearm Master to improve my combat interaction, but why do I have to choose one to invest in? Why do I have to sacrifice my combat prowess to make roleplaying more interesting? Why does that make the game better? It implies that all elements of the game are equal in value, when that certainly isn't true.

I don't really like strict siloing but I would like the rules to be set up in such a way that nobody feels like they're useless in any given situation.


It's not a problem for a Warlock, who can sell all of its damage for utility and vice versa to match the table trends, but it becomes a big problem when you're like the Ranger and you don't have that choice.

Especially when the ranger's out of combat utility often gets overshadowed ANYWAY.


The game has 3 different subsystems that you have to invest in and generally don't interact with one another, between:

Attack
Magic
Skills

They all have roughly the same costs, in terms of action economy and in terms of investment (between class features, feats, and magical effects). However, how valuable they are is extremely variable when comparing one another. They are also usually mutually exclusive, as picking a Fighter means you have worse skills and spells, taking the Cast a Spell Action prevents you from taking the Attack Action or Search Action, etc.

Yeah skills are very much the redheaded stepchild of D&D with a few exceptions such as some grapple builds, which can be a problem. If anything a lot of classes like rogues get overshadowed MORE if you play a session or two without combat since the casters can REALLY unload their spells in a combat-free adventure in a way that rogues just can't keep up with.


Skills could be done in the same way. That is, have no implementation of skills that can get in the way of attacking or magic1. No skill feats. No skill actions. In fact, just add a "Skill Action" on top of your other Action Economy resources, and allow everyone to use a skill every single turn.

I think this is going a bit too far. Rounds in 5e are cluttered enough already compared to TSR-D&D. Think easier to just boost skills and possibly hit magic with the nerf bat. Adding concentration closed a lot of the yawning chasm in power we had in 3.5ed and while it's still there is more managible.


Because the alternative is figuring out how Expertise on History checks are supposed to balance against the -5/+10 from GWM, and good ****ing luck with that.

Now that I agree with. The system I spitballed above mostly keeps skills in their own box despite a bit of overlap (grappling etc.). As far as boosting things like history while I don't like a lot of things about the Apocalypse World family of games I LOVE their take on knowledge skills. Really makes them powerful in a way I haven't seen in any other games (except for stuff like FATE in which players can use knowledge skills to make **** up about the world, which wouldn't fit with D&D at all).


Put another way, right now some have apples (Fighters, Barbarians), others have oranges (Rogues, Bards). The only way you lose is by having to compare apples to oranges. Either turn all oranges into apples (this is how FATE does it), or just give everyone exactly equal amounts of both (kinda how 4th edition does it).

I don't think you have to go that far to get things into rough parity, and rough parity is enough. Some people having apples and others having oranges are fine, as long as the oranges aren't gold plated and the apples aren't full of spider eggs. This sort of balance is a lot better in 5e than 3.5e, I think the rest of the gap can be closed by just making skills more specific and useful (and maybe wacking magic with the nerf bat a bit), won't be perfect of course but would be good enough to appeal to me. I love FATE for what it is, but it gets really samey after a while and I enjoy D&D a lot for all its warts.

[Bosh]

All I really think the 5e Ability Check system needs to make it fully functional is examples of "easy," "medium," "hard," and "nigh-impossible" actions for each of the Abilities, and possibly the skills. Put all the wiggle-room language you want in there about how it's not hard and fast, and that these are just examples. But that's all that's needed to make it fully functional.

I'd go beyond that but that we don't even get some basic benchmarks for what easy and hard mean is pretty silly. I think having those benchmarks should be pretty uncontroversial.


I'd say this issue is compounded by the game breaking it's own bonded accuracy goal time and time again when it comes to skills. Probably the worst offender is the Pass Without Trace spell, which in combination with a Guidance Cantrip for the lumbering oaf in Plate Armor, basically makes all but the hardest stealth tasks automatic for the whole party. The result is that many DMs end up jacking up the targets beyond where they should be.

Ugh, yeah that spell needs a good hard wacking with the nerf bat. Perhaps to just apply to avoiding getting tracked, not sneaking past people.


You're not wrong. I've been saying this for years. I take solace for the last couple of years I'm no longer the lone vocal voice talking about this as I was many years before. However, some people will insist DM fiat for DCs is absolutely fantastic. The thing is 5E does have defined DCs for non-combat events. There are DCs for object hardness and AC. There is even a DC table for NPC reactions using social skills, though it's hard to find in the DMG and frankly I don't think any DM I play with use it let alone even know it exists. Xanathar book introduced DC tables for tool use, so to say 5E could never have proper DC tables for skill use is wrong. They could have. They chose not to, and if never having been optioned in Unearthed Arcana is any indication, they never will. Some people applaud this. I think this was and is a mistake. I will be happily surprised if they ever do. It doesn't hurt anyone if they do. Those people who absolutely adore DM fiat for DCs may still do so, and the rest of us can have the benchmark guidelines we've been wanting since Day 1.

I've been saying similar things for a while as well but mostly talking with people about OSR games and how they need more/any skill rules. Have played a lot less 5e than other people but have played enough that the skill rules are starting to get under my skin.

The thing is I don't necessarily really want detailed DC tables. We had those in 3.5ed and that was a mess. Either it was a pain in the ass to keep track of or people ignored them entirely and you NEVER knew what you were getting WRT skills when you sat down at a new table.

The problem with DC tables etc. is that everything is front loaded. All of the same rules apply at 1st level as at 20th level, you just get better at doing everything. That's the opposite of how magic works. A first level wizard just has to know a tiny handful of spells (and stupid cantrips *waves angry Vancian magic loving cane at cantrips*) and that's easy to learn and then by the time you're 20th level you've built up an entire arsenal of things you can do bit by bit by bit. That's a good learning curve, but having a whole slew of DC tables isn't a curve, it's just a wall. Maybe a chest high wall you can climb over without too much trouble, but it's still really really really frontloaded.

Would prefer to have players (especially martial characters, especially rogues) start off with a small handful of out of combat proficiencies that let them do a specific thing with everything else covered mostly by DM fiat with players slowly getting a bigger and bigger arsenal of things that they're good at so they can chew down the rules bit by bit as they gain levels.

[Unoriginal]

I have to point out that "I don't enjoy X" is far from the same as "there is a problem with X".


The 5e skill system does exactly what the designers wanted it to do, and it caters to the style of play they wanted it to cater to.

They didn't fail to accomplish what they were set to do, realized post-release that there was an unforseen element making the system unsuitable for what it was meant to do, or declared that the system was for a style of play it factually doesn't support. Such, it cannot be called a "problem".

No one has to enjoy the skill system if it doesn't fit their tastes or favored playstyle, of course, but that doesn't make it a problem.

[Segev]

I have to point out that "I don't enjoy X" is far from the same as "there is a problem with X".


The 5e skill system does exactly what the designers wanted it to do, and it caters to the style of play they wanted it to cater to.

They didn't fail to accomplish what they were set to do, realized post-release that there was an unforseen element making the system unsuitable for what it was meant to do, or declared that the system was for a style of play it factually doesn't support. Such, it cannot be called a "problem".

No one has to enjoy the skill system if it doesn't fit their tastes or favored playstyle, of course, but that doesn't make it a problem.

By this definition, there is no problem with any game system unless the designers say “woops, we meant that to work differently.”

This would mean there are no problems with, for example, the infamous FATAL.

[Unoriginal]

By this definition, there is no problem with any game system unless the designers say “woops, we meant that to work differently.”

Indeed, though it doesn't need to be stated so explicitly. For example, the fact the 3.X Monk class was generally inferior in a fight compared to basically all of the PHB martial classes was clearly not intended. Yet it still happened. Ergo, it is a problem.

On the other hand, the 3.X Warrior class was meant to be inferior to the PHB martial classes. Ergo, not a problem. And if someone made a thread saying "the problem with Warrior and how to fix it" then talked about how the Warrior class should be a match for the PHB martial classes, my answer to it would be "the Warrior class is intended to be weaker, therefore it's not a problem".



This would mean there are no problems with, for example, the infamous FATAL.

I'm quite certain the FATAL designer made a few promises their game couldn't meet.

[Composer99]

Having run an awful lot of D&D 5e in the last few months, I have really come round to appreciate its ability check with proficiency system. Not having a pile of look-up tables to trawl through is a relief.

I'm inclined to mostly agree with Segev that a few examples of what activities might fall within each tier of difficulty would be satisfactory for the most part. A better job of guiding DMs through adjudicating ability checks in the DMG would be good, too. (Personally, I would also suggest that for improvising DCs that DMs be given the advice to assign DCs of 10 + 1d6-1 for most tasks.)

That stated, I think there is room for expansion of the skill system in a way you've suggested, Bosh. In particular, adding mastery/"epic" proficiency at high-level play could explicitly allow extraordinary or epic/mythic capabilities.

[NaughtyTiger]

I am inclined to go the other way, fewer skills, fewer rules, fewer limitations.

It is easier for a DM to make a ruling in a vacuum; much harder for her to go against the written rule.

I like the idea Spawn of Morbo hinted at here as a starting point...https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?p=24647707#post24647707

[Dr. Cliché]

I'm more a fan of how Vampire handles skills with tiers. You could have up to five ranks in the skill. Each rank had a narrative description like one level in Fire might light a candle, two levels might be a cone of burning hands, three levels might be a huge fireball, four levels might torch a house, and five levels might be a raging inferno. Most skill checks didn't need a roll because you knew what you could do already but when opposition or failure or some RNG is needed you would roll a number dice based on how many levels you have hoping to generate success results. A number of success results are needed to pass the check, which can vary depending on whether the DM thinks it's easy or not. It's a combination of vague rules and You Can Do a Thing! Since you're really only rolling when opposed it's less about vague nonsense and more about Enemy Skills vs Your Skills the Test. Or testing against yourself to see if the random forces of the universe were controllable to let you sufficiently stunt drive through this busy street with no issues.

That does indeed sound like a good way of doing things. I like the idea of 'if you're competent enough, you can succeed without a roll, assuming you're not opposed.' Also, it seems like a little thing but examples of skill use and tiers are very, very useful.


I have to say, I really think D&D should bring back Skill Points in some form - even if it's just a tier thing like the above (so the number of ranks you can have in a skill could be tied to your proficiency bonus, rather than your level).

I just don't like how inflexible the current system is, where you're just trained or untrained in a given skill. I much preferred the flexibility offered by Skill Points, where I could be highly-trained in a small number of skills, or slightly trained in a larger number, or something in between the two, depending on my character. For the record, I very much like Pathfinder's skill system in this regard.

The other thing I would say is that I would really like more or better examples of what skills in 5e can/should be used for. I can't even count the number of times a player has asked to do something or if they might know something, and I've furrowed my brow trying to work out which of 5e's skills is supposed to cover that. And those examples that are given are frequently unintuitive at best.

[Kyutaru]

The other thing I would say is that I would really like more or better examples of what skills in 5e can/should be used for. I can't even count the number of times a player has asked to do something or if they might know something, and I've furrowed my brow trying to work out which of 5e's skills is supposed to cover that. And those examples that are given are frequently unintuitive at best.
This is something past editions were better at but I think the more they added to the game the more "pages" were used up on pictures and mechanical stuff. While past editions had character classes on a page or two this edition has multiple different paths that need to be explained in detail for each class. We keep asking for more but they only want to streamline and give us less otherwise the book will end up 600+ pages and as thick as Pathfinder's rulebook. One can never discount the impact of economics on game development. It does kind of feel like they phased out skills this edition and tied them to ability score checks like they were in the pre-3E days.

[LtPowers]

I can't even count the number of times a player has asked to do something or if they might know something, and I've furrowed my brow trying to work out which of 5e's skills is supposed to cover that.

Eh, don't worry about it. If it's not obvious, just call for an ability check and let the player ask if a particular proficiency applies. This does require training your players to ask, though.


Powers &8^]

[Contrast]

Simple. Make skill rules as narrow as combat and spell rules. A ruleset should really be consistent within itself and it causes a lot of problems when one chunk of the rules is set up in a way that's fundamentally different than another chunk.

I quite like 5E. Probably my least favourite thing about it is that a huge chunk of the rulebook is just page upon page of spells (most of which will never be cast). If your proposed fix is to take that system and replicate it for skills I wouldn't be a fan. Of course we could try and streamline them down to just a few options rather than half a rulebook full...but then we've just remade 4th edition (which I personally never had a huge problem with but you can see why WotC wouldn't be keen to repeat that).

Peronsally my vote is for the opposite approach and handle magic in a similar way that the Genesys system does - there are a couple of broad types of magic effect (barrier, conjure, augment, etc.) and you can flavour and apply modifiers to how they work on the fly but using it isn't fundamentally a different system than the system used to shoot people or talk to them.

[Unoriginal]

The other thing I would say is that I would really like more or better examples of what skills in 5e can/should be used for. I can't even count the number of times a player has asked to do something or if they might know something, and I've furrowed my brow trying to work out which of 5e's skills is supposed to cover that.

Do you have any specific example of it happening, and how you ruled it?

[Man_Over_Game]

I don't think you have to go that far to get things into rough parity, and rough parity is enough. Some people having apples and others having oranges are fine, as long as the oranges aren't gold plated and the apples aren't full of spider eggs. This sort of balance is a lot better in 5e than 3.5e, I think the rest of the gap can be closed by just making skills more specific and useful (and maybe wacking magic with the nerf bat a bit), won't be perfect of course but would be good enough to appeal to me. I love FATE for what it is, but it gets really samey after a while and I enjoy D&D a lot for all its warts.

You might be right, but without doing so, there's going to be a point where the conversion rate of apples-to-oranges will come up, and the only answer is some dev shrugging and saying "I guess if they want an animal companion for combat, just make them use the Animal Handling skill" (which is something Jeremy Crawford, 5e's lead developer, actually said: 1 (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1023361783241666560), 2 (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/943561637713215488)).

I'm a firm believer that if you ever want to include both worldbuilding/roleplaying and tactical combat in the same game, the only winning solution is the one where you don't have to choose. Otherwise, you're creating a situation where someone has to make an economical decision on the conversion rate of apples-to-oranges, and it won't be based on much more than a hunch.

But that wouldn't be DnD. People like DnD because the spells are predefined, spell slots are weird, skills are awkward, and because Wizards can bend the universe while the Fighter kills Ogres. Strip away the imbalances, and it starts to feel more generic. We tried that in 4th edition and it blew up in our face, so WotC decided to do what worked last time (more 2e/3.5e).

[Aimeryan]

[...]
OK, so how to fix this.

Simple. Make skill rules as narrow as combat and spell rules. [...]


Is it, though? I mean, the general idea is simple, but the details and balance might not be - not to mention the sheer time and effort required to fully flesh it out.

My issue with this train of thought is, shouldn't that have been the developer's job? What's next; 6e has no narrow rules for spells and instead a whole lot of vague 'the DM can make up rules for this!'? Sure would save Jeremy Crawford a lot of time and effort...

I feel like if I was to embark on such a project, I would probably want to start tackling other areas of roughness and vagueness - at that point, should I not just start making my own game? I feel that 5e coasts a lot on the name of D&D and an established player base and lore. The business model is starting to look a little like the Fifa series...

[Dr. Cliché]

Do you have any specific example of it happening, and how you ruled it?

I'm afraid I don't have any specific examples to hand (they're not the sort of things I specifically commit to memory), though I'm playing again tomorrow so if another crops up then I'll put it here.


However, one thing that I know has come up repeatedly is Knowledge checks.

Some are pretty straightforward (plants and animals are Nature, undead are Religion, most magical stuff is Arcana etc.).

However, there are a lot of knowledge-related aspects that don't seem to fall into any of the knowledge skills, and nor does the PHB offer any suggestion as to which skill is appropriate for these things.

For example, what would you use to try and recall knowledge about Monstrosities? Maybe Nature, but it seems rather odd given that Monstrosities are typically unnatural creatures by definition. Arcana then? Maybe but many seem to have only the most tenuous links with magic. And Religion/History seem even less useful.

Hell, I only know that Dragons are Arcana because of past editions.

Now, granted, Arcana does include information on "the planes of existence, and the inhabitants of those planes", yet if I was to take this definition at face value it would seem to eliminate the need for other Knowledge skills entirely. :smallconfused:

[Man_Over_Game]

I'm afraid I don't have any specific examples to hand (they're not the sort of things I specifically commit to memory), though I'm playing again tomorrow so if another crops up then I'll put it here.


However, one thing that I know has come up repeatedly is Knowledge checks.

Some are pretty straightforward (plants and animals are Nature, undead are Religion, most magical stuff is Arcana etc.).

However, there are a lot of knowledge-related aspects that don't seem to fall into any of the knowledge skills, and nor does the PHB offer any suggestion as to which skill is appropriate for these things.

For example, what would you use to try and recall knowledge about Monstrosities? Maybe Nature, but it seems rather odd given that Monstrosities are typically unnatural creatures by definition. Arcana then? Maybe but many seem to have only the most tenuous links with magic. And Religion/History seem even less useful.

Hell, I only know that Dragons are Arcana because of past editions.

Now, granted, Arcana does include information on "the planes of existence, and the inhabitants of those planes", yet if I was to take this definition at face value it would seem to eliminate the need for other Knowledge skills entirely. :smallconfused:

Or Nature vs Survival vs Medicine vs Poisoner's Kit vs Alchemist's Kit vs Herbalist's Kit vs Healer's Kit, when it comes to foraging medicinal supplies. What makes it even weirder is that 3 of those kits all basically have the same exact supplies, or that the last of those kits (Healer's Kit) is the only one that references a skill (as it mentions you can ignore your Medicine check) and doesn't have a use outside of combat.

[Unoriginal]

But that wouldn't be DnD. People like DnD because the spells are predefined, spell slots are weird, and because Wizards can bend the universe while the Fighter kills Ogres.

Funny, the people who keep arguing that the Wizards can bend the universe never talk about doing anything more meaningful than the Fighter killing Ogres.



Strip away the imbalances, and it starts to feel more generic.


And yet the most powerful caster in the world still get rekt by someone waving a sharp stick very fast.



We tried that in 4th edition and it blew up in our face, so WotC decided to do what worked last time (more 2e/3.5e).

4e's biggest reason for failing was being ashamed of being D&D. 4e made things balanced by removing what made character classes unique, and also by separating flavor and rules as completely as possible, to the point that the Disintegrate spell didn't disintegrate anything anymore. You can have balance without stripping differences and flavor away.

[Man_Over_Game]

Funny, the people who keep arguing that the Wizards can bend the universe never talk about doing anything more meaningful than the Fighter killing Ogres.

This is more of a 5e thing, but they made everyone about equally as equipped for combat, but didn't do the same out of combat.

I wouldn't see an issue of having a Bard instead of a Barbarian in a combat-oriented team. The Bard can figure it out.

But the opposite isn't quite true.

If the DM runs a lot of politics, there's not much a Barbarian can do to keep up with the Bard's skills, Bardic Inspiration, or spells like Detect Thoughts, other than player experience, making what you do out of combat pointless, or a DM handout. You can succeed, but Bards could do it from Bard stuff, while Barbarians have to do it from...somewhere else.

Which is why I think Barbarians should have just as many noncombat features as Bards. That way, it doesn't matter how your table flexes, everyone's still an equal. They did it well with combat, now they just have to do it for everything else. WotC just screwed up in thinking that the '3 pillars' have to mix, but nothing says that actually has to be true. You don't need to compare the Ranger's Favored Enemy to the Barbarian's Rage when there's no reason to.

[Dr. Cliché]

But that wouldn't be DnD. People like DnD because the spells are predefined, spell slots are weird,

Slightly off topic, I know, but I'll put myself down as very much not being a fan of the spell slot system with strictly predetermined spells.

To me it's always felt like a type of casting that should be specific to Wizards is instead forced onto every other class. If anything, it seems like most classes should be more flexible and it should be the Wizard that's the oddball.



Strip away the imbalances, and it starts to feel more generic. We tried that in 4th edition and it blew up in our face, so WotC decided to do what worked last time (more 2e/3.5e).

I think it's fair to say that 4th edition stripped out a lot more than just imbalances. :smallwink:

In terms of spells, though, I disliked it because it went in the opposite direction to what I wanted. I'd like to see magic become more flexible. For example - especially for classes like Sorcerers - I'd like to see a fire spell that can serve multiple functions, perhaps depending on the level of the caster, the amount of magic put into it and/or the level of skill or specialisation. So a sorcerer can use the same spell to create a bolt of fire or a ball of fire or a cone of fire - rather than each of those needing their own separate spell.

Similarly, I've always found spell slots in general rather odd. Again, they feel like a very rigid system for non-Wizards to be using. I don't hate them or anything, I'd just prefer something more akin to spell points.

However, 4th made spells far more rigid. Not least because so many spells and so many effects were just removed outright, and instead virtually every spell became some variation on 'do XdY+Z damage and move/let ally move/apply condition/remove condition'.

Not only that, but the casting system also became far less flexible. e.g. you could pick between Fireball and Lightning Bolt at one level, but whichever one you picked you could never learn the other. There was no possibility of learning the other spell in place of a higher level one. Similarly, you couldn't cast one Encounter power a second time instead of another - even if the other was the same or higher level.

What I'm getting at is that change can go in multiple directions. The fact that people didn't like a much more restrictive magic system doesn't mean that they will also oppose a more flexible one. Hell, 5th edition itself would seem to be testament to that, given how much more flexible magic became compared to 3.5.

[paladinn]

I've been working on a hybrid game that uses a "Classic" D&D chassis, but incorporates a number of things from other editions, especially 5e. I'm using the 5e spell/magic system pretty much as-is. I'm also adapting and expanding the proficiency system to handle a number of things.

Currently the proficiency chart governs attack roles, saves and ability checks for "proficient" weapons, stats and skills. Borrowing from Chris Perkins' "AD&D3", I've added a "common" row that is basically 1/2 proficiency bonus. This is for Non-proficient saves and such, and represents general viability and competence based on general experience.

A player can also buy increased proficiency in 2 proficient skills or a weapon in lieu of an ASI, or as a class feature at a given level. This is similar to the BECMI "weapon mastery" idea (without the special effects). The current proficency is equivalent to the Skilled level. Expert rank gets you another +2 to attack and skill roles; Master rank gets yet another +2.

As I've envisioned, only rogues and fighters would be eligible for Master rank.

The actual bonuses may be toned down for a Classic-type game; but I think the matrix as described could add a lot to a 5e game.

[NorthernPhoenix]

i actually quite like the 5e skill system, it's a godsent as a DM. And i'm glad they didn't include too many example DCs in the core rulebook, because no matter what language they used, the prevailing game culture would have taken them as One True Gospell. To change the game culture the books were promoting to one that accepts and encourages variable DC, they had to leave the examples out. In fact, i'd argue some of the silliest parts of the 5e skill system come from the few places they do use examples (jumping, for a start).

[Xervous]

My main problem with the skill system of 5e is how it is glaringly bolted on to more rigid and cleanly defined structures, like an afterthought. Bounded accuracy works for combat because it’s a combination of multiple attempts at filling a progress bar. Skills are simple yes/no’s where in the default, vague presentation you get one shot and that’s it, running on numbers that are vaguely implied to conform to the “if it’s your primary stat you’ll have a 65% success rate” math.

In contrast to the various choices available in and around combat you have a likely coin flip’s chance of nailing a relevant skill check as the system prevents you from developing competency in most regards. Ignoring npc examples were the game advises to just not roll, a singular skill check obstacle confronting the group is far more likely to make a single player feel lucky rather than the supposed expert feel validated for choosing to pursue that specialty. Perhaps it’s best the skill system is so vague and simply resolved when the numbers are pushing success by lottery.

On allowing players to roll:

It’s a STR obstacle and GM doesn’t want low STR untrained characters to even be allowed to succeed. Putting the DC high makes it likely a dedicated barbarian would flub, putting it low forces a potentially arbitrary call on who is allowed to roll otherwise the basement dwelling wizard could high roll the obstacle and upstage the barbarian. In order to fulfill:
-DM’s desire that barbarian likely succeeds
-Barbarian’s expectation that he succeeds given his investment
-Wizard’s expectation that he is worthless here
You have arrived at an arbitrary point just shy of skipping the roll and telling the barbarian he succeeds. A high STR but nonproficient character or pro/low STR could be in the running, but what’s the breakpoint? Short of the GM providing reference material on what the height limit is for riding this ride you have no foundation to measure your character’s skills against. Are you good enough to be reliable, are you good enough to even try? These are permanent choices to have to make about your character, guessing if the numbers you’ve sought will be relevant.

[Pex]

It's perfectly fine for every class ability that has a DC to be universally determined as 8 + relevant ability score modifier + proficiency in every campaign everwhere. It's perfectly fine for all non-magical platemails everywhere in every campaign to provide AC 18. It's perfectly fine for anyone who casts Bless as a 1st level spell to give three creatures +1d4 to attacks and saving throws in every campaign everywhere. However, a general guideiine as to what the DC should be to climb a wall or determine what a character knows about the characterisitics of a monster he's facing for every campaign everywhere is going too far to make the game very hard on the DM.

I don't buy that.

[Theodoxus]

Slightly off topic, I know, but I'll put myself down as very much not being a fan of the spell slot system with strictly predetermined spells.

To me it's always felt like a type of casting that should be specific to Wizards is instead forced onto every other class. If anything, it seems like most classes should be more flexible and it should be the Wizard that's the oddball.


I literally did that. I removed the Wizard class completely from my homebrew and turned them into an option for any spellcasting class. Pure Vancian casting, where you have to memorize the specific spell into a specific spell slot. I added Spell Focus options (ala 4th Ed) for each caster class, and added "Tome", which changed your casting stat to Int, gave you a spell book, forced the caster to use Vancian casting, but the big bennie was it increased your spell slots by ~1/3. A couple players (newish to D&D) really liked the idea of being able to have more spells memorized than their partymates could cast. Yeah, they might have to burn one of the extra slots to hold a spell they might not cast, but they could always swap it out at their next rest.

[NorthernPhoenix]

On allowing players to roll:

It’s a STR obstacle and GM doesn’t want low STR untrained characters to even be allowed to succeed. Putting the DC high makes it likely a dedicated barbarian would flub, putting it low forces a potentially arbitrary call on who is allowed to roll otherwise the basement dwelling wizard could high roll the obstacle and upstage the barbarian. In order to fulfill:
-DM’s desire that barbarian likely succeeds
-Barbarian’s expectation that he succeeds given his investment
-Wizard’s expectation that he is worthless here
You have arrived at an arbitrary point just shy of skipping the roll and telling the barbarian he succeeds. A high STR but nonproficient character or pro/low STR could be in the running, but what’s the breakpoint? Short of the GM providing reference material on what the height limit is for riding this ride you have no foundation to measure your character’s skills against. Are you good enough to be reliable, are you good enough to even try? These are permanent choices to have to make about your character, guessing if the numbers you’ve sought will be relevant.

I actually like to use variable DC following the DMG guidelines for this. A Barbarian has an EASY (DC 10) or VERY EASY (DC 5) time doing Barbarian Things. A Wizard has a MODERATE (DC 15) or HARD (DC 20) time doing Barbarian Things. I do the same for backgrounds.

[Xervous]

I actually like to use variable DC following the DMG guidelines for this. A Barbarian has an EASY (DC 10) or VERY EASY (DC 5) time doing Barbarian Things. A Wizard has a MODERATE (DC 15) or HARD (DC 20) time doing Barbarian Things. I do the same for backgrounds.

While I perfectly respect everyone’s right to play however they want to it’s things like this that leave me questioning the worth and reliability of the numbers on the sheet. It’s a disconnect from other parts of the game where you know what you set out to present with your character.

Does a DEX barbarian get the favorable DCs while a STR wizard suffers the hard DCs on “lift boulder”? Do you feel the need to introduce large invisible bonuses to overcome the limited nature of bounded accuracy in enacting a skill system (rhetorical as you clearly have). Why can’t those bonuses be forward facing towards the players?

[NorthernPhoenix]

While I perfectly respect everyone’s right to play however they want to it’s things like this that leave me questioning the worth and reliability of the numbers on the sheet. It’s a disconnect from other parts of the game where you know what you set out to present with your character.

Does a DEX barbarian get the favorable DCs while a STR wizard suffers the hard DCs on “lift boulder”? Do you feel the need to introduce large invisible bonuses to overcome the limited nature of bounded accuracy in enacting a skill system (rhetorical as you clearly have). Why can’t those bonuses be forward facing towards the players?

I see it as another aspect of choices in character creation mattering. So yes, DEX Barbarian does get the favorable DC but is still worse than STR Barbarian because his numbers are lower. STR Wizard gets the hard DC but is better than the no STR Wizard because his numbers are better. I find this keeps the system simple (no need for random DCs or bonuses, just the 5-30 table) and improves Class Fantasy without completely denying guys like STR Wizard the chance of ever succeeding.

[KorvinStarmast]

The more rules you add to do a thing, the more you take away from the options for other people to roleplay that thing.
Thanks, this is a nice, concise set up for any response to the OP and it highlights something about D&D that over the years we have learned: just throw another rule at it does not necessarily 'fix' something.
(Of course, just what we need is another thread about 5e's skill system and those who dislike it ... I'll say away this time.)

[Xervous]

I see it as another aspect of choices in character creation mattering. So yes, DEX Barbarian does get the favorable DC but is still worse than STR Barbarian because his numbers are lower. STR Wizard gets the hard DC but is better than the no STR Wizard because his numbers are better. I find this keeps the system simple (no need for random DCs or bonuses, just the 5-30 table) and improves Class Fantasy without completely denying guys like STR Wizard the chance of ever succeeding.

But are these varying DCs not just a phantom +10 (in the given example) being applied to the barbarian? Would a multiclass Wizard N / barbarian 1 get the favorable DCs? At this point does the barbarian class now have a line “+10 to barbarian rolls”?

[Democratus]

Agreed about too many systems spoiling the broth. (Mixed metaphor there).

In early days of D&D (at least that I experienced), there was no system at all for social interaction or creating a magic item or writing a letter to a king.

You just did the thing, negotiated the method and the outcome with the DM, and went on with the game. The quality of the experience was entirely up to the people at the table.

Same applied to exploration. If you said, "I search under the mantle for any levers or buttons" then you found the concealed button. If you didn't say exactly that - you found nothing. The upshot was that the players interacted much more with the room description and narration of the DM. You miss a key detail, and you might live to regret it.

The current system of "I search the room" followed by a die roll and a yes/no has caused the game to lose a bit of its social and storytelling magic.

I guess what I'm saying is that maybe *no system* is better than what exists now.

[Pex]

There's a lot of problems from all sorts of directions. The more rules you add to do a thing, the more you take away from the options for other people to roleplay that thing.




Point, so you need to be careful where you place the rule. I still remember for Pathfinder 1 people were screaming bloody murder in one of their last splat books before Pathfinder 2 they made a feat to allow someone to use Diplomacy in combat to get your opponent to stop fighting and parley or surrender depending which outcome you want. Gaming groups have been doing that forever just fine without needing a feat to grant permission. The existence of the feat would mean officially no one could do it anymore unless they had the feat. The feat was universally and rightfully ignored. If Pathfinder really wanted to help (new) DMs with this option of codified rules it should have been an add on to the existing Diplomacy skill use.

Having guidelines in skills is telling players anyone can do these things. Gating something behind a feat or class ability makes it exclusive. One can argue something so gated shouldn't have been and vice versa. While it is prudent to be concerned and careful about this placement when adding rules, that you have to be concerned and careful is not a good reason not to add rules. In this instance of wanting guidelines for skill use, it is intended it's meant for anyone can do. In a previous thread of wanting to improve the warrior's lot through the use of skills, you can gate specific skill uses behind needing to be X class of Y level if you don't want spellcasters to do it too.


Agreed about too many systems spoiling the broth. (Mixed metaphor there).

In early days of D&D (at least that I experienced), there was no system at all for social interaction or creating a magic item or writing a letter to a king.

You just did the thing, negotiated the method and the outcome with the DM, and went on with the game. The quality of the experience was entirely up to the people at the table.

Same applied to exploration. If you said, "I search under the mantle for any levers or buttons" then you found the concealed button. If you didn't say exactly that - you found nothing. The upshot was that the players interacted much more with the room description and narration of the DM. You miss a key detail, and you might live to regret it.

The current system of "I search the room" followed by a die roll and a yes/no has caused the game to lose a bit of its social and storytelling magic.

I guess what I'm saying is that maybe *no system* is better than what exists now.

No.

No system is where gotcha DMing comes in. The DM asks how you search for traps so you give a lengthy description but then "gotcha" the trap is sprung on you anyway because you didn't specifically mention you check the ceiling.

It also means only those players who are charismatic enough in real life to convince the DM they can do something get to do anything.

[Contrast]

However, a general guideiine as to what the DC should be to climb a wall or determine what a character knows about the characterisitics of a monster he's facing for every campaign everywhere is going too far to make the game very hard on the DM.

I don't buy that.

Is the wall easy to climb? DC10. Very easy? DC5. Hard? DC20.

Is knowledge about that type of monster easy to find in your setting? DC10. Very easy? DC5. Hard? DC20.

Now...personally I disagree with the guidance given there but you can't claim the rules don't give you guidance on DCs.

Now this certainly doesn't tell me how hard I should make a certain type of wall to climb. But the key question is - is that an important question? Are we playing a game with players or are we trying to simulate a world?

Is 'what should the DC of a cobblestone wall in the rain be' an important question for the rulebook to be answering? Is a better question for the DM to be asking themselves 'how difficult do I want to make climbing this wall?'. The rules as set out discourage DMs from simulationist thinking and encourage a more simplified/practical approach to running the game.

You can certainly do it the other way but the cut off point for stopping including more tables of example DCs is pretty arbitrary. Whats the DC for tying a knot? What about with different types of rope? What about if the get interrupted and have to try and finish a half tied knot? What about if you're trying to do it blindfolded? What about if you're doing it one handed? What about if you're doing it on a swaying ship? Is the DC for untying it the same as the DC for tying it? What if its been left a long time?

5E purposefully set out to simplify the system with adv/disadv in place of situational modifiers. The guidance given in the DC system seems perfectly in line with that design goal.

So - would it be too far? No, there are plenty of good systems which offer much more guidance (and plenty with far less - people seem obsessed with missing DCs for climbing walls but I'm not sure I've ever played in a system where there were clearly defined guidance for difficulty of climbing different types of wall and its never been a problem) - but it would seem to be a step in the opposite direction than they were trying to go.

[Democratus]

No.

No system is where gotcha DMing comes in. The DM asks how you search for traps so you give a lengthy description but then "gotcha" the trap is sprung on you anyway because you didn't specifically mention you check the ceiling.

It also means only those players who are charismatic enough in real life to convince the DM they can do something get to do anything.

Having played with the original 'no system' DM, I'm not seeing the "gotcha" argument. First, a combative DM will ruin a game no matter how many rules there are. Second, being surprised and having bad things happen when you are careless or reckless is more fun, not less, for our table.

We played 'Out of the Abyss' using a very relaxed skill system (rolls only used sometimes for stealth), leaning heavily on descriptive interaction. We started off very cocky, with bad habits gained through several lazy years of 3e/4e/5e skill systems. Eventually we got to be pros at dungeon delving. There were 14 deaths in the campaign (with 5 players) and it was one of the best experiences we have had in many years.

I don't know where you're getting that last bit from. We have an introverted, autistic player who catches more traps and secrets than anyone else. If you have players shouting over others and causing them to be ignored, that is a table problem; not a 'charisma' issue.

[Segev]

I am inclined to go the other way, fewer skills, fewer rules, fewer limitations.

It is easier for a DM to make a ruling in a vacuum; much harder for her to go against the written rule.

I like the idea Spawn of Morbo hinted at here as a starting point...https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?p=24647707#post24647707
I actually find it harder to make rulings in a vacuum. I have to much more carefully discern where my biases and “what I want to happen” begins and ends, and I have to break down careful mathematical analyses of how hard I think something is, and then remind myself how bad I am at judging such things an rethink it again.

[Sorinth]

i actually quite like the 5e skill system, it's a godsent as a DM. And i'm glad they didn't include too many example DCs in the core rulebook, because no matter what language they used, the prevailing game culture would have taken them as One True Gospell. To change the game culture the books were promoting to one that accepts and encourages variable DC, they had to leave the examples out. In fact, i'd argue some of the silliest parts of the 5e skill system come from the few places they do use examples (jumping, for a start).

Although overall I agree with the sentiment here I think they could have done a better job helping new DMs figure out when to actually call for a roll, how to set a "fair" DC, and some advice on how to adjudicate what failure actually represents.

[Telok]

I see it as another aspect of choices in character creation mattering. So yes, DEX Barbarian does get the favorable DC but is still worse than STR Barbarian because his numbers are lower. STR Wizard gets the hard DC but is better than the no STR Wizard because his numbers are better. I find this keeps the system simple (no need for random DCs or bonuses, just the 5-30 table) and improves Class Fantasy without completely denying guys like STR Wizard the chance of ever succeeding.

I really hope you read backstories and talk to the players about how they see their characters. I was in a short lived game that died partially because of what you do. Had a character where the best way to represent them mechanically was fighter1/bard2+, taking a couple mechanically non-optimal choices, and ignoring all the music & song baggage. Wrote a short background, shorter than this post, and talked at the DM about the character.

I say "at" because despite eye contact and actual two way talking happening it turned out that nothing got through. Half way through the session "you know <thing> because you went to bard school" came out of the DM's mouth. That game didn't last past the next session because the DM did that sort of stuff to other characters too.

You're doing the same thing. You jack up the DCs for characters who don't fit your preconceptions. That DM lowered DCs based on what they thought the character class was. It's the same effect. You will cause conflict when you preconceptions of classes comes into conflict with someone's non-stereotype character.

[Bosh]

Agreed about too many systems spoiling the broth. (Mixed metaphor there).

In early days of D&D (at least that I experienced), there was no system at all for social interaction or creating a magic item or writing a letter to a king.

You just did the thing, negotiated the method and the outcome with the DM, and went on with the game. The quality of the experience was entirely up to the people at the table.

Same applied to exploration. If you said, "I search under the mantle for any levers or buttons" then you found the concealed button. If you didn't say exactly that - you found nothing. The upshot was that the players interacted much more with the room description and narration of the DM. You miss a key detail, and you might live to regret it.

The current system of "I search the room" followed by a die roll and a yes/no has caused the game to lose a bit of its social and storytelling magic.

I guess what I'm saying is that maybe *no system* is better than what exists now.

That's kind of where I'm coming from as well in the OP, just coming at it from a bit different direction. I don't like what I called "vague" and "abstract" rules in the OP because they boil down a lot of things that should be freeform into d20 rolls. HOWEVER, I'd like characters to have some abilities so what I'd prefer would be to strip out the skill system entirely and have the default go back the OSR-style freeform stuff but then ALSO put in some very specific abilities that do one very specific thing that doesn't step on the toes of old school style exploration.

To use other jargon, resolution in games is generally either "task based" (can I do a specific narrow thing, for example hit a dude) or "scene based" (can I resolve this conflict, for example kill a guy). Most D&D abilities are task based but a lot of skills are weirdly scene based, just roll a dice and if you roll well the problem goes away. Which leads to some weird disconnects and drains out a lot of exploration gameplay.

[NorthernPhoenix]

But are these varying DCs not just a phantom +10 (in the given example) being applied to the barbarian? Would a multiclass Wizard N / barbarian 1 get the favorable DCs? At this point does the barbarian class now have a line “+10 to barbarian rolls”?

I can understand where you're coming from mathematically, but ultimately i see a reduced DC as different within the context of the fiction and the goals of the 5-30 spectrum. Some things are EASY or HARD depending on your class and background, which makes these choices both more meaningful within the context of skills and strongly aids class fantasy without breaking bounded accuracy as with +10s in potentially unintentional way. Finally, people with expertise like the Rogue can ignore this as they'll succeed just the same either way, preserving their "good at skills" niche.

And no you can't "dip" for this, because it's about the core of the character and the concept they represent rather than the specific spread of multi-class levels. That's another reason it's not just a bonus to pickup, it's a guideline for the DMs to help set DCs in a way i think is more fun and ultimately rewarding in the spirit of 5e. It's essentially adding "when determining DC, take into account the character class and background" to the default of "if a role is required, determine if it is VERY EASY to NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE and set a DC according the difficulty of the task".

[Bosh]

I can understand where you're coming from mathematically, but ultimately i see a reduced DC as different within the context of the fiction and the goals of the 5-30 spectrum. Some things are EASY or HARD depending on your class and background, which makes these choices both more meaningful within the context of skills and strongly aids class fantasy without breaking bounded accuracy does with +10s in potentially unintentional way. Finally, people with expertise like the Rogue can ignore this as they'll succeed just the same either way.

And no you can't "dip" for this, because it's about the core of the character and the concept they represent rather than the specific spread of multi-class levels. That's another reason it's not just a bonus to pickup, it's a guideline for the DMs to help set DCs in a way i think is more fun and ultimately rewarding in the spirit of 5e.

So it's based on character concept? Makes sense I guess. I like refluffing barbarians as swashbucklers since "over-eager swashbuckler who is insanely brave" is kinda my wheelhouse and that character concept works better with barbarian mechanics than rogue ones.

[NorthernPhoenix]

So it's based on character concept? Makes sense I guess. I like refluffing barbarians as swashbucklers since "over-eager swashbuckler who is insanely brave" is kinda my wheelhouse and that character concept works better with barbarian mechanics than rogue ones.


I really hope you read backstories and talk to the players about how they see their characters. I was in a short lived game that died partially because of what you do. Had a character where the best way to represent them mechanically was fighter1/bard2+, taking a couple mechanically non-optimal choices, and ignoring all the music & song baggage. Wrote a short background, shorter than this post, and talked at the DM about the character.

I say "at" because despite eye contact and actual two way talking happening it turned out that nothing got through. Half way through the session "you know <thing> because you went to bard school" came out of the DM's mouth. That game didn't last past the next session because the DM did that sort of stuff to other characters too.

You're doing the same thing. You jack up the DCs for characters who don't fit your preconceptions. That DM lowered DCs based on what they thought the character class was. It's the same effect. You will cause conflict when you preconceptions of classes comes into conflict with someone's non-stereotype character.

I'm going to be honest, i haven't once ran a game for someone who wanted to play as a wildly non-conformist character so i can't speak from personal experience in how i'd handle that. I've just never had the opportunity to try this system with those kinds of characters. That said, if you can point to regular class and say "my multi-class combo is actually this" i think it would be easy to accommodate. The Swashbuckler Barbarian is a good example because actual Swashbuckler is already a thing.

[Pex]

Is the wall easy to climb? DC10. Very easy? DC5. Hard? DC20.

Is knowledge about that type of monster easy to find in your setting? DC10. Very easy? DC5. Hard? DC20.

Now...personally I disagree with the guidance given there but you can't claim the rules don't give you guidance on DCs.

Now this certainly doesn't tell me how hard I should make a certain type of wall to climb. But the key question is - is that an important question? Are we playing a game with players or are we trying to simulate a world?

Is 'what should the DC of a cobblestone wall in the rain be' an important question for the rulebook to be answering? Is a better question for the DM to be asking themselves 'how difficult do I want to make climbing this wall?'. The rules as set out discourage DMs from simulationist thinking and encourage a more simplified/practical approach to running the game.

You can certainly do it the other way but the cut off point for stopping including more tables of example DCs is pretty arbitrary. Whats the DC for tying a knot? What about with different types of rope? What about if the get interrupted and have to try and finish a half tied knot? What about if you're trying to do it blindfolded? What about if you're doing it one handed? What about if you're doing it on a swaying ship? Is the DC for untying it the same as the DC for tying it? What if its been left a long time?

5E purposefully set out to simplify the system with adv/disadv in place of situational modifiers. The guidance given in the DC system seems perfectly in line with that design goal.

So - would it be too far? No, there are plenty of good systems which offer much more guidance (and plenty with far less - people seem obsessed with missing DCs for climbing walls but I'm not sure I've ever played in a system where there were clearly defined guidance for difficulty of climbing different types of wall and its never been a problem) - but it would seem to be a step in the opposite direction than they were trying to go.

We get back to what is easy for one DM is hard for another and my ability to do stuff depends on who is DM that day. Obviously any DM can say plate mail gives AC 20, Bless is +1d6 but only for one person, and a monk's stun DC is CH saving throw DC 14 always. However, such things aren't done because generally people go by the rules. House rules, of course, but house rules are what the DM says they are at Session 0, not during game play you only find out about the first time you try to climb a tree or want to know of any weakness of the monster you're fighting. As a player I get to know the DC of my abilities, how spells work, how to calculate my attack modifier, everything I need to know about combat. However, wanting to climb a tree or swim across a river with a fast current, I'm George of the Jungle or Tarzan totally based on DM whim, not on my choices of what my Athletics number is.

Just this week in two different games.

Playing a cleric, as another PC was taking in game minutes to talk to someone I told the DM I'd like to use Passive Insight for the entire conversation to get a sense of the person's demeanor, whether he's lying or holding back, etc., instead of having to roll each time the NPC said something. You can use Passive for skills besides Perception. The DM could have used the NPC's Passive Deception or roll or any skill I didn't care. I wanted to use my character's known quantity of being good at Insight. The DM denied me and said I had to roll because "it's more fun that way", once, which I did, rolled a 1 for a total of 9, and got nothing when my Passive Insight was 18.

Another game, different DM, playing an Artificer. (Background - The DM told me in Session 0 he's using Investigation to search for traps. He was a player in my game and adopted my house rule that Investigation is always used for Search and Perception for Spot using the 3E reference for ease of deciding which skill to use when.) As we're exploring a cavern dungeon complex I told the DM I would like to use my Passive Investigation (17) to search for traps as we move along. I willingly accept the possibility I miss a trap that is DC 20 as an example. He said no problem, so I get to use my good Investigation score to travel the complex with confidence I know what I'm doing.

Neither DM played the game wrong. The problem is it's DM whim whether a player doesn't need to roll or not. It's not the first time for the first DM I couldn't use my Passive Score. Every time I wanted to use Passive Perception he would deny me, so my perceptive cleric of Passive 18 keeps missing the obvious because I roll low. I should learn by now not bother asking anymore and just accept in his game I can never be good at anything unless luck says I am. I'm George of the Jungle. With the other DM I get to be good at what I chose to be. I'm Tarzan.

This is not fun.


Having played with the original 'no system' DM, I'm not seeing the "gotcha" argument. First, a combative DM will ruin a game no matter how many rules there are. Second, being surprised and having bad things happen when you are careless or reckless is more fun, not less, for our table.

We played 'Out of the Abyss' using a very relaxed skill system (rolls only used sometimes for stealth), leaning heavily on descriptive interaction. We started off very cocky, with bad habits gained through several lazy years of 3e/4e/5e skill systems. Eventually we got to be pros at dungeon delving. There were 14 deaths in the campaign (with 5 players) and it was one of the best experiences we have had in many years.

I don't know where you're getting that last bit from. We have an introverted, autistic player who catches more traps and secrets than anyone else. If you have players shouting over others and causing them to be ignored, that is a table problem; not a 'charisma' issue.

Lucky you. For me it was all gotcha DMing during my 2E years. You had to explain everything you do and hope you say something the DM was thinking.
You could never just search the room. You had to specify exactly what you were searching and how. Even searching a bed meant specifying looking under the sheet, under the mattress, tear open the mattress, under the bed itself, in the pillow case, tear open the pillow so of course you miss the secret compartment in the bed post you didn't mention searching. What ever 3E's issues of skill use, it fixed that and stopped gotcha DMing.

[Bosh]

I'm going to be honest, i haven't once ran a game for someone who wanted to play as a wildly non-conformist character so i can't speak from personal experience in how i'd handle that. I've just never had the opportunity to try this system with those kinds of characters. That said, if you can point to regular class and say "my multi-class combo is actually this" i think it would be easy to accommodate. The Swashbuckler Barbarian is a good example because actual Swashbuckler is already a thing.

Fair enough. One of my all-time favorite characters was a SotC (pulp FATE) swashbuckler who was just ludicrously hard to kill (high skills in athletics and endurance with aspects to back it up) but hilariously clueless in social situations ("attention span of a gnat" etc. etc.). In most class-based systems, swashbucklers seem to run on charisma and I've had a hard time making this guy in various D&D games, but running him as a barbarian just clicked. Great mobility, atheltics checks through the roof, pretty much impossible to kill, and a lovable goofball in social situations.

But this kind of drives home my original problem with 5e skills. You take class into account, I've had DMs take the raw unmodified roll into account, all kinds of things. When you sit down to a new table with a new DM you don't know WHAT you're getting in terms of skills. I'd rather have stuff that's going to be left that wide open have no actual rules (old school D&D style) rather than rules so wildly up to interpretation. Then make rules for the specific stuff that different tables can agree on.

[Telok]

Lucky you. For me it was all gotcha DMing during my 2E years. You had to explain everything you do and hope you say something the DM was thinking.
You could never just search the room. You had to specify exactly what you were searching and how. Even searching a bed meant specifying looking under the sheet, under the mattress, tear open the mattress, under the bed itself, in the pillow case, tear open the pillow so of course you miss the secret compartment in the bed post you didn't mention searching. What ever 3E's issues of skill use, it fixed that and stopped gotcha DMing.

Oh hey yeah. We got that in OotA. Missed the sun blade because searching the room and fountain wasn't looking in it. Never saw anything like driders on ceilings unless we said look at the ceiling, even if it was only 15' high and lit. Got railroaded when we failed the required checks to advance the current plot bit. I hadn't had that in a couple decades.

[Unoriginal]

Lucky you. For me it was all gotcha DMing during my 2E years. You had to explain everything you do and hope you say something the DM was thinking.
You could never just search the room. You had to specify exactly what you were searching and how. Even searching a bed meant specifying looking under the sheet, under the mattress, tear open the mattress, under the bed itself, in the pillow case, tear open the pillow so of course you miss the secret compartment in the bed post you didn't mention searching. What ever 3E's issues of skill use, it fixed that and stopped gotcha DMing.

It's not a system thing, gotcha DMing also existed with 3.X DMs.

No amount of rules can fix a jerk DM, they can only help a DM who doesn't know what to do.

[AdAstra]

It's not a system thing, gotcha DMing also existed with 3.X DMs.

No amount of rules can fix a jerk DM, they can only help a DM who doesn't know what to do.

Rules can even, if done poorly, make DMs worse if followed. Rules are a tool. Even the best tools can't compensate for active malice, and poor tools can teach people bad habits or make things worse.

[Dr. Cliché]

I see it as another aspect of choices in character creation mattering. So yes, DEX Barbarian does get the favorable DC but is still worse than STR Barbarian because his numbers are lower. STR Wizard gets the hard DC but is better than the no STR Wizard because his numbers are better.

I can only say that I would never play things this way.

[Kyutaru]

It's not a system thing, gotcha DMing also existed with 3.X DMs.

No amount of rules can fix a jerk DM, they can only help a DM who doesn't know what to do.

It was a system thing back then. The adventure modules DMs were given specifically told them things like "there is a gem hidden at the bottom of the fountain if players check it, though even then it takes a Wis of 13 to notice". So many items were hidden in old boots or traps on a corpse with descriptions that specifically mentioned the procedures for finding or noticing them. There were even monsters that acted like objects in the room unless the players specifically interacted with them in a certain way, which would lead to the monster attacking. Otherwise it would wait for them to rest or try to leave and follow them like a stalker to ambush them. So much like how some people hate DMs that don't follow rule conventions, DMs tried their best to follow the adventure's rules too. Anything that carried over to 3.X was likely due to this developer-created training.

[Miele]

I think 5e skill system is decent enough, meaning that when I DM a table, I can do everything I want while mantaining a good level of control over two things I consider the most important ones:

1) PCs are the heroes, they want to be powerful, resourceful and proficient at adventuring.
2) Everyone having fun is the most important thing to preserve, if you care about the campaign to last.

D&D is a game that often spans over long periods, it's not unheard of to have campaigns last years. My longest one lasted 6 years or thereabout (from 1990 to 1996), with attendance dropping as natural during the summer vacations and intensifying during the "dead months" of the year. Keeping people interested in something like that, even if it's like in my case all RL friends that hang out together pretty much all the time, is very challenging and requires thinking more than planning.

I loaded characters with magic items, that made them more versatile rather than more powerful, but I made sure that all of them were able to shine at least every other session, be it during combat, exploration or social situations.

In 5e the occasions to let players shine are plenty as usual. Intimidation checks can auto-succeed sometimes, just like some combat encounters feel more like warmups, whenre I let my players bully enemies during encounters. Sometimes combat becomes difficult, but doable, sometimes it's so deadly that a large amount of preparation is required to turn the odds in the PCs favour.

Currently I gave the throne of DM to my friend, we alternated a lot during the years (he introduced me to D&D sometimes around 1988).

We're trying to survive after a shipwreck, we're on a tropical island 2000 miles from civilization and while my wizard is being useful with the current predicament, with utilities like Mold Earth, Shape Water, Mage Hand, Prestidigitation, it's the martials that are doing the bulk of the work, by foraging, hunting, working leather, sculpting tools, creating containers and so on. We are all level 6 by the way.

The DM left each of us a single item except our clothing: one weapon or the armor. I picked my arcane focus (he told me the spellbook was gone, sigh!) and had to transcribe my spells somewhere, with the rule that I could concentrate and recall one of them per day. I made some ink with coal and water, enchanted it through various means (table-made bull****, no rules applied) and started tattoing myself with spells.

The cleric helped during the first days by creating food and water, but we had no containers to keep the water, so most of it was wasted unless I was there keeping it "shaped" once per hour.

Skills usage was frequent, interesting, based on characters strength and backgrounds. I'm a gnome, 20 kg, 95 cm tall gnome with a strength of 8 and that's what I roleplayed. I didn't help taking down trees with an axe, nor was I useful to help people drag pieces from the wreckage (no Tenser's floating disk), but I made trivial picking up the coconuts with Mage Hand, so there is that for me :smallbiggrin:

So far the group worked pretty well, considering that 2 players are fairly new to D&D, I expected worse, but the excitement each player got from being useful is rewarding by itself. I have been the swiss army knife so far, useful to speed up the work of others and to provide utility, but survival skills were much more useful to us than a couple spells or cantrips (also it took me over 2 weeks to recover my spells completely).

In the end, it doesn't matter what skill system a table uses: freedom of action and imagination are the most rewarding things to promote. You can rest assured that an unexperienced DM will try to follow the book and fail, either because of the "gotcha" mentaility mentioned above or because dice are nasty sometimes.

P.S.: I was reading about Waterdeep: Dragonheist and someone posted that a very important event depends on a single die roll (a charisma check of sorts, I don't know the module enough to go in details), otherwise you get a different ending, which many consider less satisfying. I don't think any good DM would completely let a story take such a turn on a single skill check, but maybe I'm wrong.

[Unoriginal]

P.S.: I was reading about Waterdeep: Dragonheist and someone posted that a very important event depends on a single die roll (a charisma check of sorts, I don't know the module enough to go in details), otherwise you get a different ending, which many consider less satisfying. I don't think any good DM would completely let a story take such a turn on a single skill check, but maybe I'm wrong.

If it's the instance I'm thinking about (and it's the only fitting event in that adventure that I recall), it's convincing the final treasure's guardian that they were deceived by the jerk who embezzled Waterdeep's gold. Only difference is if the ensuing conflict for the treasure is one large you vs the bad guys who were also searching for the treasure vs the guardian free-for-all, or you + the guardian vs the bad guys.

Descent into Avernus does have a VERY ending-changing moment hinging on one Charisma check, but said check will be influenced by the results of the module's secondary arcs, and if it fails the PCs can have a second chance if they meet the requirement for it (also depending on the module's events). Plus it makes sense it's this dramatic a check in the context. It's far from the only way to succeed the adventure, too.

[NorthernPhoenix]

I can only say that I would never play things this way.

I think it would be way more cool to hear how you do things than for you do discuss my method!:smile:

And i say method rather than system, because it's really just the regular system with extra "guidance" on how the DM should set the DCs he already sets.

[Yakk]

The pre-gygax D&D thief is my inspiration for this kind of thing.

Start with a bog-standard spell progression table. Use full caster or half caster or whatever.

Replace "spell level" with "talent level".

Write up talents, by level. These talents are a bit like spells in that they dictate things you can just do. By default, you get to do them whenever you want. At-will, automatic.

For example:

Talent level 1:
Mighty leap (Athletics)
Your jumping distance is doubled.

Swimmer (Athletics)
You gain a swim speed equal to your speed

Climber (Athletics)
You gain a climbing speed equal to your speed

That's it. (Skill in brackets means you need training in that, to attach it to existing 5e skill system)

If you go with half-caster progression in 5e, then talent tiers unlock at:
Talent1: Level 1 (tier 1)
Talent2: Level 5 (tier 2)
Talent3: Level 9 (tier 2-3)
Talent4: Level 13 (tier 3)
Talent5: Level 17 (tier 4)

Level 1 talents are for local heros.

Level 2 talents are for regional heros. They compete with fireball slinging wizards in awesomeness.

Level 3 and 4 talents are for world-renouned heroes. Spellcasters are getting world-spanning teleportation abilities and scrying.

Level 5 talents are for demigods. They should break the game as much as having wish does.

---

Now, one thing I'm thinking about is that we can give such talents to everyone who isn't a spellcaster.

Your Skill Talent Level is equal to your character level minus half your spellcasting and pact magic levels (round down).

You then divide this by 2 (round up) to look up your talent progression.

A Fighter 20 has talent 10 (access to 5th level talents)
An EK 20 has spellcasting 7 skill 9 (access to 5th level talents)
A Paladin 20 has spellcasting 10 skill 8 (access to 4th level talents)
So a Wizard 20 has spellcasting 20 skill 5 (access to 3rd level talents)

I made this generous to spellcasters, because I think even they should be able to have some lower-tier fun here. A wizard can pull off skill tricks at 20 that a fighter could at 10, which I don't think is a horrible nerf to fighters.

[MinotaurWarrior]

I think the 5e skill system needs two things:

1) More explicit opposed checks. For example, "To tell a plausible lie, roll deception Cha vs insight Wis". "To recollect an aspect of an enemy's abilities (one line of its Stat block) roll Int + relevant skill based on type vs a DC equal to the CR + 10"

2) Skill-resolved Obstacles with CR.

Figuring out appropriate, balanced DCs is actually challenging and the presented system honestly sucks, with the core reason being that it doesn't take into account how optional a challenge is, how easily it can be circumvented by other abilities, and the risk of failure.

A DC 10 Acrobatics or athletics check to avoid falling to your death is a serious challenge at low levels, ~CR4 I'd say.

A DC 20 locked chest is not. It's CR0 or 1/8. Anyone with a non-negative Dex mod will succeed at it.

A DC10 lock on the door to the watchtower from which ranged enemies are firing down upon you, on the other hand, should have a higher CR.

The difference between CR-Assigned obstacles and a big huge table of DCs is both that it helps DMs design encounters more, AND it reduces the pressure to feel like you're playing wrong if you don't use the example from the book. If I make a custom NPC orc chieftain that's CR15 as a monster, nobody is going to say that I'm playing wrong. I just did something custom instead of using the examples provided. Similarly, if you have a falling hazard use DC 15 instead of the canonical DC 10 example hazard, you're not breaking any rules - you're just using a custom hazard.

[OldTrees1]

I see it as another aspect of choices in character creation mattering. So yes, DEX Barbarian does get the favorable DC but is still worse than STR Barbarian because his numbers are lower. STR Wizard gets the hard DC but is better than the no STR Wizard because his numbers are better. I find this keeps the system simple (no need for random DCs or bonuses, just the 5-30 table) and improves Class Fantasy without completely denying guys like STR Wizard the chance of ever succeeding.

Thank you for joining this discussion. I, like many here, favor static DCs and variable PC modifiers. So I have not heard enough about your use case.

Two main things I look to in a skill system is:
1) The previously impossible becoming probable, and the player knowing it.
2) The previously probable becoming guaranteed, and the player knowing it.

How does a variable DC system go about accomplishing these goals?

[NorthernPhoenix]

Thank you for joining this discussion. I, like many here, favor static DCs and variable PC modifiers. So I have not heard enough about your use case.

Two main things I look to in a skill system is:
1) The previously impossible becoming probable, and the player knowing it.
2) The previously probable becoming guaranteed, and the player knowing it.

How does a variable DC system go about accomplishing these goals?

My method uses the same fundamental system as the DMG. It just proposes that Class and Background should factor into the difficulty of task when choosing the difficulty on the 5-30 scale.
I don't personally think knowing all the DCs for everything ahead of time is necessary, any more than knowing the stats of monsters ahead of time is. That's a philosophical difference we have. In my opinion, all the player needs to know from the selection point is that they're good at what they choose to be good at, and what i do doesn't really change that fact.

I think the "knowing it" part is the part where we disagree, defining "knowing it" as specific foreknowledge of success chance to a degree beyond knowing you're meaningfully better than the guy who didn't choose to be good at something.

[OldTrees1]

My method uses the same fundamental system as the DMG. It just proposes that Class and Background should factor into the difficulty of task when choosing the difficulty on the 5-30 scale.
I don't personally think knowing all the DCs for everything ahead of time is necessary, any more than knowing the stats of monsters ahead of time is. That's a philosophical difference we have. In my opinion, all the player needs to know from the selection point is that they're good at what they choose to be good at, and what i do doesn't really change that fact.

I think the "knowing it" part is the part where we disagree, defining "knowing it" as specific foreknowledge of success chance to a degree beyond knowing you're meaningfully better than the guy who didn't choose to be good at something.

When a player knows that a skill usage moved from probable to guaranteed, then that usage became a character feature. Say a guild thief wants to scamper across the thieves' highway. They would need to climb up to the rooftops, run along the rooftops, and jump from roof to roof.


At low level (1st? 0th?) they might not be adept enough to attempt it at all. It is impossible for them.
At some point the character can start to do it, and it starts being probable (3rd?). If the player never knows it is no longer impossible, then they will never attempt it. Players don't know everything their character knows, the DM or the rules inform the player about the character's capabilities.
At some point the character become skilled enough to not risk failure (5th?). If the player knows this, then the character can use this as part of a plan. If the player does not know this, then the illusion of risk will cause the player to avoid more complicated plans built off of what the character can now do.


If the player does not know when a usage moves between these categories, then the player is handicapped in their ability to roleplay the character. Skill usages build on each other, but if the player doesn't know when a usage becomes assured, then they won't know they can use it as a foundation for new usages.

Now you might note I am being generic in my wording. I am not saying the player needs to know every or even any DC. However I am wondering if variable DCs has a means of achieving this design goal.

[Man_Over_Game]

My method uses the same fundamental system as the DMG. It just proposes that Class and Background should factor into the difficulty of task when choosing the difficulty on the 5-30 scale.
But what you're describing could just be defined from the opposite direction.

If ([Stats + Roll] > [DC - Background]), Success.

But that's the same as:

IF ([Stats + Background + Roll] > DC), Success.

You could just implement a bonus to those checks based on background and class. That way, the player is the one keeping track of player-specific stats, and the DM is the only one tracking the DM-specific numbers (like the lethality of a poison or something).

[Morty]

Agreed about too many systems spoiling the broth. (Mixed metaphor there).

In early days of D&D (at least that I experienced), there was no system at all for social interaction or creating a magic item or writing a letter to a king.

You just did the thing, negotiated the method and the outcome with the DM, and went on with the game. The quality of the experience was entirely up to the people at the table.

Same applied to exploration. If you said, "I search under the mantle for any levers or buttons" then you found the concealed button. If you didn't say exactly that - you found nothing. The upshot was that the players interacted much more with the room description and narration of the DM. You miss a key detail, and you might live to regret it.

The current system of "I search the room" followed by a die roll and a yes/no has caused the game to lose a bit of its social and storytelling magic.

I guess what I'm saying is that maybe *no system* is better than what exists now.

I wouldn't agree that no system is better than 5E's system. But I do think that this is the root of the issue. Early D&D had no skill system and then when one was added, it was tacked on and existing in a weird separate state from combat and magic. I don't think the game has managed to work it out yet.

[Sorinth]

When a player knows that a skill usage moved from probable to guaranteed, then that usage became a character feature. Say a guild thief wants to scamper across the thieves' highway. They would need to climb up to the rooftops, run along the rooftops, and jump from roof to roof.


At low level (1st? 0th?) they might not be adept enough to attempt it at all. It is impossible for them.
At some point the character can start to do it, and it starts being probable (3rd?). If the player never knows it is no longer impossible, then they will never attempt it. Players don't know everything their character knows, the DM or the rules inform the player about the character's capabilities.
At some point the character become skilled enough to not risk failure (5th?). If the player knows this, then the character can use this as part of a plan. If the player does not know this, then the illusion of risk will cause the player to avoid more complicated plans built off of what the character can now do.


If the player does not know when a usage moves between these categories, then the player is handicapped in their ability to roleplay the character. Skill usages build on each other, but if the player doesn't know when a usage becomes assured, then they won't know they can use it as a foundation for new usages.

Now you might note I am being generic in my wording. I am not saying the player needs to know every or even any DC. However I am wondering if variable DCs has a means of achieving this design goal.

This already exists it just isn't spelled out which tasks are auto-success and at what level because it's all left to the DMs discretion. The DM is already only supposed to call for a check if there's a risk of failure, so the DM is well within his rights to not ask a character to make rolls for parkour movement when they feel there isn't any real risk of failure.

And there's actually a key benefit in leaving it up to the DM discretion. Let's say your Thief is good at running across rooftops in his home town which is based on a European architecture. But during the adventure they go to a city that is based on Asian architecture with lots of sloped roofs. The same thief should probably not auto-succeed jumping from roof to roof because he's not familiar with all the tricks for this style of buildings. He'll need to make his checks when first attempting to do it, but then after a while he gets the hang of it and will auto-succeed again.

You can't handle that kind of situation if there's a feature that says you auto-succeed once you hit level 5.

There's also the case where if there is a rule it probably can't handle all the possible situational elements. For example, auto-succeed these checks makes sense under normal conditions. But what if it's raining, it would make sense to no longer auto-succeed because the surfaces are slippery so the rule for auto-success would have to talk about exceptions for slippery surfaces like rain or ice. But then what about if the city is high up in the mountains where there's always a strong wind, we have to add strong winds to the list of exceptions. But then what happens in a heavy fog where you can't see well? People don't tend to parkour in the fog because it's way more dangerous so we'll need to add some special case for that too. It's impossible to come up with all possible conditions so if you try you'll miss some and create a situation where the player feels the DM is screwing them over by not allowing them to use their ability like it says they can. It's why ultimately it should come down to DM's discretion.

I think what 5e did badly is explain this type of thing in the DMG. They could have provided much better guidance on how and when to ask for a skill check.

[OldTrees1]

This already exists
I was asking NorthernPhoenix about which ways they and other variable DC systems achieve this design goal.


it just isn't spelled out which tasks are auto-success and at what level because it's all left to the DMs discretion. The DM is already only supposed to call for a check if there's a risk of failure, so the DM is well within his rights to not ask a character to make rolls for parkour movement when they feel there isn't any real risk of failure.
This seems to have missed half of what I was saying.


Two main things I look to in a skill system is:
1) The previously impossible becoming probable, and the player knowing it.
2) The previously probable becoming guaranteed, and the player knowing it.
If the player does not know when a usage moves between these categories, then the player is handicapped in their ability to roleplay the character.

I notice you did not address the 2nd half of either. How does the player know when something impossible becomes possible and when something possible become automatic? If you are relying on them guessing, then that is not knowledge. How does the system (including the DM) communicate it beforehand. Once we know this alternative implementation, then we can learn from its pros/cons.



And there's actually a key benefit in leaving it up to the DM discretion. Let's say your Thief is good at running across rooftops in his home town which is based on a European architecture. But during the adventure they go to a city that is based on Asian architecture with lots of sloped roofs. The same thief should probably not auto-succeed jumping from roof to roof because he's not familiar with all the tricks for this style of buildings. He'll need to make his checks when first attempting to do it, but then after a while he gets the hang of it and will auto-succeed again.

You can't handle that kind of situation if there's a feature that says you auto-succeed once you hit level 5.

There's also the case where if there is a rule it probably can't handle all the possible situational elements. For example, auto-succeed these checks makes sense under normal conditions. But what if it's raining, it would make sense to no longer auto-succeed because the surfaces are slippery so the rule for auto-success would have to talk about exceptions for slippery surfaces like rain or ice. But then what about if the city is high up in the mountains where there's always a strong wind, we have to add strong winds to the list of exceptions. But then what happens in a heavy fog where you can't see well? People don't tend to parkour in the fog because it's way more dangerous so we'll need to add some special case for that too. It's impossible to come up with all possible conditions so if you try you'll miss some and create a situation where the player feels the DM is screwing them over by not allowing them to use their ability like it says they can. It's why ultimately it should come down to DM's discretion.

I think what 5e did badly is explain this type of thing in the DMG. They could have provided much better guidance on how and when to ask for a skill check.

So you are conflating usage 1 with usage 2? The guild thief won't attempt to use the thieves highway in a storm (or otherwise abnormal thieves highways) if the player never learns that the guild thief can do it normally. This is what I meant by building the foundation.

Also it is reasonable to want DM discretion, but that is orthogonal to my question.


You can't handle that kind of situation if there's a feature that says you auto-succeed once you hit level 5.
Clarifying what I meant by "character feature"
If you ever have a usage (normal thieves highway) become automatic, then you have created a virtual feature. That does not mean related but different usages(stormy thieves highway) become automatic. It means that usage, which has become automatic, is automatic. So:
1) I was talking about a virtual feature. That means a feature resulting from the success chance of the usage. Not a separate feature.
2) You conflated usage 1 with usage 2. Automatic success on usage 1 does not mean automatic success on usage 2.

[Pex]

It's not a system thing, gotcha DMing also existed with 3.X DMs.

No amount of rules can fix a jerk DM, they can only help a DM who doesn't know what to do.

That's a cop-out. It's frowned upon now, but it was standard operating procedure. The lack of rules meant DMs had to make it up, and that's what they came up with. If you were a Thief or had the right Proficiency it was defined how "2E skill use" works. Otherwise forget it. Some DMs went - no Proficiency, automatic No for you. Other DMs let you try to convince them you can do something, and you still had arbitrary rolls with a minus number. PCs who were not Thieves kept wanting to search and spot things in our college group we had to come up with our own house rule on how to resolve it - roll under or equal to the average of your Intelligence + Wisdom. We called it the Observation roll.

You are right DMs can be jerks regardless of edition., but I find it interesting I met jerk DMs in 2E but never in all my years of playing 3E and Pathfinder that had defined rules of skill use with Take 10/20 so that PCs can autosucceed if good enough, but when 5E came round the 1st time I ever tried a 5E game, there was the jerk DM who argued with a player who wanted to fix the mast of a ship. Because there's no guidelines the player came up with a plan and the DM did everything he could to say it wouldn't work and player countered then he countered etc. He finally gave in but was still mad about it the next game session where he said, I quote, "I'm a DM who believes a player should never get what he wants."

So yes, if the rules don't say what PCs can do, as hypothetically proposed not talking about 5E for this sentence, some DMs will instinctively deny. Some out of malice. Others out of worry the PC is getting away with something being unbalancing/too powerful. You'll get the gotcha DMing.

[Sorinth]

I was asking NorthernPhoenix about which ways they and other variable DC systems achieve this design goal.

The current system achieves your two design goals by removing the roll entirely when the situation warrants it. I'll consider the "knowing it" part to actually be a separate design goal which is #3 which I'll cover further down.

Variable DC just takes it one step further and says ok, I still want there to be a chance of failure but I want more control over what that chance is. It's actually just a reframing of the circumstantial bonuses/penalties that are already in the rules.

Your background is a street urchin who was always crossing the city by jumping roof to roof you get a +X to your roll and oh look now you % chance of failure that I the DM actually want. For some people it's more intuitive to have it as a variable DC, for others it's easier to think of as circumstantial bonus, but the end result is essentially the same.



This seems to have missed half of what I was saying.



I notice you did not address the 2nd half of either. How does the player know when something impossible becomes possible and when something possible become automatic? If you are relying on them guessing, then that is not knowledge. How does the system (including the DM) communicate it beforehand. Once we know this alternative implementation, then we can learn from its pros/cons.

Hey DM can I do X?

Now how much information the DM wants to give you is up to play style, some might want to give you the DC, some will want to keep it vague and say whether it's likely or unlikely, some might even ask you to make an intelligence check and success gives you the exact DC. And I guess it depends on the check a bit too, you should have a fairly good idea about whether you can jump across something, but knowing whether you could persuade someone would be harder for your character to know.

But the essence is ask the DM.


So you are conflating usage 1 with usage 2? The guild thief won't attempt to use the thieves highway in a storm (or otherwise abnormal thieves highways) if the player never learns that the guild thief can do it normally. This is what I meant by building the foundation.

Also it is reasonable to want DM discretion, but that is orthogonal to my question.


If you ever have a usage become automatic, then you have created a virtual feature. That does not mean related but different usages become automatic. It means that usage, which has become automatic, is automatic. So:
1) I was talking about a virtual feature. That means a feature resulting from the success chance of the usage. Not a separate feature.
2) You conflated usage 1 with usage 2. Automatic success on usage 1 does not mean automatic success on usage 2.


This comes down more to the personality of the player. If you are a creative/out of the box thinker then you are naturally going to come up with a creative ways to overcome the obstacle and then you have to ask the DM whether it can work.

If you aren't that type of person and the idea never occurs to you, well there's really nothing any skill system can do to address that. There can never be a complete list of possible actions or features.

This is actually more about role play in general. It's extremely hard to role play a character who is supposed to be good at something that you personally are bad at. The best advice I can give here is discuss it with your DM at session 0, and see if they are cool with allowing table talk in planning what your character will say/do in those situations.

[Sorinth]

That's a cop-out. It's frowned upon now, but it was standard operating procedure. The lack of rules meant DMs had to make it up, and that's what they came up with. If you were a Thief or had the right Proficiency it was defined how "2E skill use" works. Otherwise forget it. Some DMs went - no Proficiency, automatic No for you. Other DMs let you try to convince them you can do something, and you still had arbitrary rolls with a minus number. PCs who were not Thieves kept wanting to search and spot things in our college group we had to come up with our own house rule on how to resolve it - roll under or equal to the average of your Intelligence + Wisdom. We called it the Observation roll.

You are right DMs can be jerks regardless of edition., but I find it interesting I met jerk DMs in 2E but never in all my years of playing 3E and Pathfinder that had defined rules of skill use with Take 10/20 so that PCs can autosucceed if good enough, but when 5E came round the 1st time I ever tried a 5E game, there was the jerk DM who argued with a player who wanted to fix the mast of a ship. Because there's no guidelines the player came up with a plan and the DM did everything he could to say it wouldn't work and player countered then he countered etc. He finally gave in but was still mad about it the next game session where he said, I quote, "I'm a DM who believes a player should never get what he wants."

So yes, if the rules don't say what PCs can do, as hypothetically proposed not talking about 5E for this sentence, some DMs will instinctively deny. Some out of malice. Others out of worry the PC is getting away with something being unbalancing/too powerful. You'll get the gotcha DMing.


Out of curiosity how did you find the creativity levels in problem solving in the different editions?

Because on the flip side if there's having clearly defined set of rules is that if there's a rule that covers the topic and you don't have the right skill/feature or will likely fail the check then it's too bad for you and even with a clever plan you will fail. And in many cases if there's an exhaustive list of rules people will take it to mean anything outside of that list is impossible. So there's a sense that you lose that aspect of creative problem solving if you go down the path of having rules for everything.

Although I can see the benefit of having a rule set that limits the negative outcomes having a bad DM produces is a positive, if it comes at the expense of creativity or freedom then I'm not sure it's worth it.

[Snails]

Out of curiosity how did you find the creativity levels in problem solving in the different editions?

Because on the flip side if there's having clearly defined set of rules is that if there's a rule that covers the topic and you don't have the right skill/feature or will likely fail the check then it's too bad for you and even with a clever plan you will fail. And in many cases if there's an exhaustive list of rules people will take it to mean anything outside of that list is impossible. So there's a sense that you lose that aspect of creative problem solving if you go down the path of having rules for everything.

Although I can see the benefit of having a rule set that limits the negative outcomes having a bad DM produces is a positive, if it comes at the expense of creativity or freedom then I'm not sure it's worth it.

My personal experience is player creativity went waaaaaaay way up with the 3e skill system, because low-mid level players could reliably do useful things that were fun at a DC 10, and they could attempt somewhat spectacular things with a single roll that might fail (DC 15+) or succeed.

This is related to a very old problem. In the days of circa late 80s UseNet, the discussion came up over and over, about how many many DMs were abusing simulationist logic that punished all creativity.
Example: Want to jump up and swing on the chandelier to land on top of the castle guards below? Oh, first make a Dex check to get over the railing. Then make a Str check to jump to the chandelier. Now make a Str check to hold on. And if you succeed with those three checks, you, um, get +2 on your to hit roll against a guard, and, um, +1 damage. If you fail any of those 4 rolls, you suffer 2d6 falling damage for your effort. ("'eff it! I shoot him with my arrow.")

With the 3e system, players who liked PCs with certain kinds of competence could waltz through the Creativity Tax checks, as they were just DC 10ish. They could still fail on the final important roll, in many cases, but at least they being allowed to try without being first tortured for daring to be creative.

This points to my main criticism of 5e: the flat math means most PCs who are mere very good at something have a very real chance of failing at fairly simple things (DC 10) for their entire career, level 1 through level 20. A 20th level PC with Str 14 and Athletics is a pretty athletic fellow who can still roll a 1 against a DC 10 while battling demigods.

[OldTrees1]

The current system achieves your two design goals by removing the roll entirely when the situation warrants it. I'll consider the "knowing it" part to actually be a separate design goal which is #3 which I'll cover further down.

-snip-

Hey DM can I do X?
But the essence is ask the DM.


That does sum up 5E's RAW approach. NorthernPhoenix might have an alternative with different pros/cons, hence why I replied to them.

For static DCs I feel "known DCs" have better pros/cons than "ask the DM the DC each usage". You still have DM discretion, and the DM has fewer questions to answer. Neither is strictly superior and both are worse at variable DCs, so I was wondering if NorthernPhoenix had a new alternative that even DMs using static DCs could learn from.

[Telok]

Although I can see the benefit of having a rule set that limits the negative outcomes having a bad DM produces is a positive, if it comes at the expense of creativity or freedom then I'm not sure it's worth it.

At what point do you stop though? We can do freeform rp and have no limit to creativity and freedom. As soon as you write down "fighter" on sheet your freedom is curtailed, your creativity limited. Where is the line? How do you balance between "i want the freedom to set dcs" and "climbing a rope ladder is really hard but you're heroes so the dc is only 15"?

Simply, how would you balance guard rails to keep new dms from the cliff of bad decisions so that people don't think they're fences that block the view? How can we get past the people saying the skill system is perfect because they always know the perfect dc for their group, so we can make a system where the fighter is relevant outside combat and high rolls or the 20th level genius archmage doesn't fail the basic average arcana check 15% of the time?

I won't go in the same room as organized play in this edition because of what it does with inexperienced dms. I never know if +8 to acrobatics is olympic gymnast or just reduces my chance of being a slapstick joke to 30%. Interacting with this ability check system is, for me, anti-fun because it's so vague and lol-random.

[Man_Over_Game]

At what point do you stop though? We can do freeform rp and have no limit to creativity and freedom. As soon as you write down "fighter" on sheet your freedom is curtailed, your creativity limited. Where is the line? How do you balance between "i want the freedom to set dcs" and "climbing a rope ladder is really hard but you're heroes so the dc is only 15"?

Simply, how would you balance guard rails to keep new dms from the cliff of bad decisions so that people don't think they're fences that block the view? How can we get past the people saying the skill system is perfect because they always know the perfect dc for their group, so we can make a system where the fighter is relevant outside combat and high rolls or the 20th level genius archmage doesn't fail the basic average arcana check 15% of the time?


I think that's a really important part of light rules vs. heavy rules.

An experienced DM would know when he'd need to change things up. An inexperienced DM would not. Similarly, I use less Monster Manual content now that I'm comfortable with my DMing style, but I wasn't always that way.

[Pex]

Out of curiosity how did you find the creativity levels in problem solving in the different editions?

Because on the flip side if there's having clearly defined set of rules is that if there's a rule that covers the topic and you don't have the right skill/feature or will likely fail the check then it's too bad for you and even with a clever plan you will fail. And in many cases if there's an exhaustive list of rules people will take it to mean anything outside of that list is impossible. So there's a sense that you lose that aspect of creative problem solving if you go down the path of having rules for everything.

Although I can see the benefit of having a rule set that limits the negative outcomes having a bad DM produces is a positive, if it comes at the expense of creativity or freedom then I'm not sure it's worth it.

Stifling in 2E because DMs kept saying No to everything or applying penalties to rolls don't bother trying. With 3E and Pathfinder imagination goes wild. I know exactly what I can and can't do as a base then out of the box thinking does the rest. The ability of Take 10/Take 20 with defined DCs of examples DM can use to extrapolate DC for things that are not on the table made things easier to determine whether something could be done. Autosuccess was a goal. The fun was in gaining levels to achieve it, and once so achieved the fun was enjoying the fruits of that labor. In 5E it's flip of the coin totally dependent on DM whim. In one game having 10 ST not proficient in Athletics warlock I was able to swim a moat, climb a small hill of rocks, and climb a wall to crawl through a window to get inside a Keep without having to make a single die roll. It happened just because I wanted to. In another game, different DM, having 10 ST not proficient in Athletics monk I wanted to climb to the top of a tree to get a view of a nearby area. I had to roll a DC 20 Athletics check, meaning I only succeed on a Natural 20 which of course I didn't get so I virtually can never climb a tree.

As I mentioned my highly perceptive and insightful cleric is an incompetent boob in noticing things because the DM refuses to ever let me use my Passive score, but my intelligent artificer in a different game gets to be the scrutinizing mechanic he was meant to be to search for traps. Further, in my cleric game the DM uses Proficiency as a permission slip. I can never search for tracks using Survival for example despite my +5 in it with Stone of Good Luck. I know 5E doesn't use Proficiency as permission, but it's DM prerogative of when a player gets to roll. Don't people say don't let the barbarian roll Arcana checks? In my artificer game despite not having any proficiency in Knowledge skills the DM does have me roll just on general Intelligence principle. 5E skill use is terrible for me. It's never up to me how good I can be at anything. It's always DM whim.

[Miele]

*snip*

In one game having 10 ST not proficient in Athletics warlock I was able to swim a moat, climb a small hill of rocks, and climb a wall to crawl through a window to get inside a Keep without having to make a single die roll. It happened just because I wanted to. In another game, different DM, having 10 ST not proficient in Athletics monk I wanted to climb to the top of a tree to get a view of a nearby area. I had to roll a DC 20 Athletics check, meaning I only succeed on a Natural 20 which of course I didn't get so I virtually can never climb a tree.

As I mentioned my highly perceptive and insightful cleric is an incompetent boob in noticing things because the DM refuses to ever let me use my Passive score, but my intelligent artificer in a different game gets to be the scrutinizing mechanic he was meant to be to search for traps. Further, in my cleric game the DM uses Proficiency as a permission slip. I can never search for tracks using Survival for example despite my +5 in it with Stone of Good Luck. I know 5E doesn't use Proficiency as permission, but it's DM prerogative of when a player gets to roll. Don't people say don't let the barbarian roll Arcana checks? In my artificer game despite not having any proficiency in Knowledge skills the DM does have me roll just on general Intelligence principle. 5E skill use is terrible for me. It's never up to me how good I can be at anything. It's always DM whim.

The system is not just bad, if you play by the book, it's downright terrible. DM's whim as you say is perfectly acceptable for those that have a static group, but people that keep changing tables and play AL games... oh man, I cannot try to imagine the level of frustration one can accumulate, of course then people make casters and load up on utilities to bypass skills, the spell determines exactly what's going to happen, the skill doesn't.

There is no way a level 20 with a 14 strength and proficient in athletics can fail a DC 10 check, period, except in 5e there is and that's a terrible, terrible thing to have. As Snails was saying above: I'm here battling demigods and I can't jump worth a **** or climb a 1 meter wall easily?
I think a certain guideline should be included in skill usage, especially when characters level up and become better: proficiency is 5e answer, but clearly is not enough, unless checks are always DC 10 and made with +5 stats and +5/6 proficiency bonuses.

Spells just work, skills at some level should just... work, period. Reliable talent from rogues is a thing, but level 10 and for one class only, maybe use it as a guideline? Automatic advantage on checks? Meh. Some tables to check for different situations modified by level, proficiency and stat modifier? Almost.

I'm not a game designer, but some work on this aspect of the game is necessary, at the very least to help unexperienced DMs.
As I said above, our table is ruled with an iron fist by me or my friend: we both aim at one goal both playing and DMing, which is having fun all together, create memorable experiences and let heroes be exactly that: HEROES that can do superhuman things even without using magic.

Are you trying to jump on the back of a dragon using the force of its tail swing right after you dodge the hit? Well, yes a 20+ check is in order, but you don't need one to climb a 1m high step, not even in combat, not even DC 10, you just hop there while keeping the enemy in sight all the time and even using an OA if available. You didn't buy your level 20 on ebay after all, you earned it.

[Sorinth]

At what point do you stop though? We can do freeform rp and have no limit to creativity and freedom. As soon as you write down "fighter" on sheet your freedom is curtailed, your creativity limited. Where is the line? How do you balance between "i want the freedom to set dcs" and "climbing a rope ladder is really hard but you're heroes so the dc is only 15"?

Simply, how would you balance guard rails to keep new dms from the cliff of bad decisions so that people don't think they're fences that block the view? How can we get past the people saying the skill system is perfect because they always know the perfect dc for their group, so we can make a system where the fighter is relevant outside combat and high rolls or the 20th level genius archmage doesn't fail the basic average arcana check 15% of the time?

I won't go in the same room as organized play in this edition because of what it does with inexperienced dms. I never know if +8 to acrobatics is olympic gymnast or just reduces my chance of being a slapstick joke to 30%. Interacting with this ability check system is, for me, anti-fun because it's so vague and lol-random.

Well first off I disagree that writing down fighter limits your creativity in any way. But I get the gist of your point and the honest answer is there is no perfect place to draw the line that will please everyone.

Personally I prefer the 5e system to earlier editions. It's not perfect but it does a good balancing job.

Even if there were clearer rules it doesn't stop a DM from creating an unrealistically hard DC for what should be an easy task if that's what they actually thought/wanted. In the best case what they do is help the DM assess the difficulty of something they know little to nothing about. But one of the benefits of bounded accuracy is is that it's already a lot easier to assess those difficulty and you are less likely to screw up and make something too trivial or too hard.

For your archmage situation, I can actually think of plenty of reasons why the archmage might fail an arcana check that 1st level mage might succeed at. But for sure a lot of the time the archmage shouldn't even have to roll and just auto-succeeds. Which is actually supported by the 5e rules.


All that said, I think what 5e lacked was a better DMG. The DMG should provide useful advice about how to use the skill system, how your rulings will impact the game play, what were rational/intent behind certain rules, etc...

[Dr. Cliché]

There is no way a level 20 with a 14 strength and proficient in athletics can fail a DC 10 check, period, except in 5e there is and that's a terrible, terrible thing to have. As Snails was saying above: I'm here battling demigods and I can't jump worth a **** or climb a 1 meter wall easily?
I think a certain guideline should be included in skill usage, especially when characters level up and become better: proficiency is 5e answer, but clearly is not enough, unless checks are always DC 10 and made with +5 stats and +5/6 proficiency bonuses.

Honestly, this just seems like a reason why skills shouldn't use Bonded Accuracy in the first place. Because it's basically purpose-built to make it that you struggle to ever excel in a particular skill.

That being said, I also think that not all skill uses should necessarily require checks. If you're not pressed for time and there's no consequence for failure, then why even waste time rolling?

[Sorinth]

I'm not a game designer, but some work on this aspect of the game is necessary, at the very least to help unexperienced DMs.
As I said above, our table is ruled with an iron fist by me or my friend: we both aim at one goal both playing and DMing, which is having fun all together, create memorable experiences and let heroes be exactly that: HEROES that can do superhuman things even without using magic.

Are you trying to jump on the back of a dragon using the force of its tail swing right after you dodge the hit? Well, yes a 20+ check is in order, but you don't need one to climb a 1m high step, not even in combat, not even DC 10, you just hop there while keeping the enemy in sight all the time and even using an OA if available. You didn't buy your level 20 on ebay after all, you earned it.

Well here's the thing, on the one hand you want your PCs do focus on Heroic things and not be bogged down by small things, but on the other hand if you have a list of of things with fixed DC then you will get bogged down with a bunch of meaningless roles unless you took the right skills.

In the example from @Pex, the heroic thing was probably what happened when he entered the tower. But if we take 3e DCs, he would've had to beat a DC 10 Swim check (Possibly multiple times) depending on how large the moat was. The small hill of rocks is anywhere between DC 0 and 15 Climb check depending on how steep the hill was, and finally a DC 20 or 25 Climb check depending on wall type to climb the tower.

So his Str 10 Warlock who didn't take Climb or Swim as skills is almost certain to fail and getting into that tower and doesn't even get to the heroic things.

In the climb the tree example, it's still a DC 15 so he's probably failing that too.

This is actually why I brought up the creativity angle in an earlier post. With a fixed DCs, his warlock would never have come up with a plan to get into the tower the way he did.


But as stated before they absolutely could've provided better advice for new/inexperienced DMs to help.

[Bosh]

The pre-gygax D&D thief is my inspiration for this kind of thing.

Start with a bog-standard spell progression table. Use full caster or half caster or whatever.

Replace "spell level" with "talent level".

Write up talents, by level. These talents are a bit like spells in that they dictate things you can just do. By default, you get to do them whenever you want. At-will, automatic.

For example:

Talent level 1:
Mighty leap (Athletics)
Your jumping distance is doubled.

Swimmer (Athletics)
You gain a swim speed equal to your speed

Climber (Athletics)
You gain a climbing speed equal to your speed

That's it. (Skill in brackets means you need training in that, to attach it to existing 5e skill system)

If you go with half-caster progression in 5e, then talent tiers unlock at:
Talent1: Level 1 (tier 1)
Talent2: Level 5 (tier 2)
Talent3: Level 9 (tier 2-3)
Talent4: Level 13 (tier 3)
Talent5: Level 17 (tier 4)

Level 1 talents are for local heros.

Level 2 talents are for regional heros. They compete with fireball slinging wizards in awesomeness.

Level 3 and 4 talents are for world-renouned heroes. Spellcasters are getting world-spanning teleportation abilities and scrying.

Level 5 talents are for demigods. They should break the game as much as having wish does.

---

Now, one thing I'm thinking about is that we can give such talents to everyone who isn't a spellcaster.

Your Skill Talent Level is equal to your character level minus half your spellcasting and pact magic levels (round down).

You then divide this by 2 (round up) to look up your talent progression.

A Fighter 20 has talent 10 (access to 5th level talents)
An EK 20 has spellcasting 7 skill 9 (access to 5th level talents)
A Paladin 20 has spellcasting 10 skill 8 (access to 4th level talents)
So a Wizard 20 has spellcasting 20 skill 5 (access to 3rd level talents)

I made this generous to spellcasters, because I think even they should be able to have some lower-tier fun here. A wizard can pull off skill tricks at 20 that a fighter could at 10, which I don't think is a horrible nerf to fighters.

Yup, that's more or less what I was going for, really specific stuff that you can do that isn't frontloaded rather than 3.5ed DC tables that are. I'd really love to see something like that in a game.

[Pex]

Well here's the thing, on the one hand you want your PCs do focus on Heroic things and not be bogged down by small things, but on the other hand if you have a list of of things with fixed DC then you will get bogged down with a bunch of meaningless roles unless you took the right skills.

In the example from @Pex, the heroic thing was probably what happened when he entered the tower. But if we take 3e DCs, he would've had to beat a DC 10 Swim check (Possibly multiple times) depending on how large the moat was. The small hill of rocks is anywhere between DC 0 and 15 Climb check depending on how steep the hill was, and finally a DC 20 or 25 Climb check depending on wall type to climb the tower.

So his Str 10 Warlock who didn't take Climb or Swim as skills is almost certain to fail and getting into that tower and doesn't even get to the heroic things.

In the climb the tree example, it's still a DC 15 so he's probably failing that too.

This is actually why I brought up the creativity angle in an earlier post. With a fixed DCs, his warlock would never have come up with a plan to get into the tower the way he did.


But as stated before they absolutely could've provided better advice for new/inexperienced DMs to help.

Exactly. I wouldn't expect my 10 ST warlock to be so athletically gifted in a 3E game. That's the point. I get to be so gifted anyway without any input from me because that DM thought it perfectly fine I did those things. In a 3E game being stronger and having put in the ranks to climb and swim I could Take 10 and autosucceed by my choices by the rules, not DM whim. If I was playing the 10 ST no ranks in those skills character I would likely have to roll since Take 10 is not good enough. That's fine. The good part is the DC is already determined, not DM fiat of how hard he thinks swimming or climbing is giving an arbitrary DC of whatever he feels like. I roll against the game, not the DM.

Yet, my 5E cleric has +5 Survival and is forbidden to search for tracks because of DM fiat. My Passive Perception is 18, but I must always roll so I miss the obvious by DM fiat. I try to be good at something but am denied by DM fiat and that's the 5E rules.

[Sorinth]

My personal experience is player creativity went waaaaaaay way up with the 3e skill system, because low-mid level players could reliably do useful things that were fun at a DC 10, and they could attempt somewhat spectacular things with a single roll that might fail (DC 15+) or succeed.

This is related to a very old problem. In the days of circa late 80s UseNet, the discussion came up over and over, about how many many DMs were abusing simulationist logic that punished all creativity.
Example: Want to jump up and swing on the chandelier to land on top of the castle guards below? Oh, first make a Dex check to get over the railing. Then make a Str check to jump to the chandelier. Now make a Str check to hold on. And if you succeed with those three checks, you, um, get +2 on your to hit roll against a guard, and, um, +1 damage. If you fail any of those 4 rolls, you suffer 2d6 falling damage for your effort. ("'eff it! I shoot him with my arrow.")

With the 3e system, players who liked PCs with certain kinds of competence could waltz through the Creativity Tax checks, as they were just DC 10ish. They could still fail on the final important roll, in many cases, but at least they being allowed to try without being first tortured for daring to be creative.

This points to my main criticism of 5e: the flat math means most PCs who are mere very good at something have a very real chance of failing at fairly simple things (DC 10) for their entire career, level 1 through level 20. A 20th level PC with Str 14 and Athletics is a pretty athletic fellow who can still roll a 1 against a DC 10 while battling demigods.

The way I read your response (And others have said similiar things) is that your creativity is based on the fact that you know you'll succeed the small parts of your plan (Mostly because you have a big bonus and not actually because you know the DCs ahead of time).

So this is really about bounded accuracy. The main reason I brought up creativity is that bounded accuracy allows you to actually use skills that you didn't focus on and still have a reasonable chance of success. So you can attempt that swinging chandelier attack when you are a raging barbarian, which can easily be seen as increasing creativity since you have options beyond what you specialized in. The flip side is that some DMs might make you roll for things that you should probably auto-succeed at.

[Sorinth]

Exactly. I wouldn't expect my 10 ST warlock to be so athletically gifted in a 3E game. That's the point. I get to be so gifted anyway without any input from me because that DM thought it perfectly fine I did those things. In a 3E game being stronger and having put in the ranks to climb and swim I could Take 10 and autosucceed by my choices by the rules, not DM whim. If I was playing the 10 ST no ranks in those skills character I would likely have to roll since Take 10 is not good enough. That's fine. The good part is the DC is already determined, not DM fiat of how hard he thinks swimming or climbing is giving an arbitrary DC of whatever he feels like. I roll against the game, not the DM.

Yet, my 5E cleric has +5 Survival and is forbidden to search for tracks because of DM fiat. My Passive Perception is 18, but I must always roll so I miss the obvious by DM fiat. I try to be good at something but am denied by DM fiat and that's the 5E rules.

I think you are deluding yourself if you think you are rolling against the "game" and not DM whim. If you want to climb that tower and the PHB gives an example of DC 20 to climb a wall, it means nothing because if the DM wants it be more challenging this wall is particularly smooth with little to no handholds so now the DC is 25 or 30.

You are pretty much always rolling against DM's whim.

Your 3E cleric was also forbidden from searching for tracks as well because it was locked behind a feat. Your 5e DM has presumably locked it behind being proficient and frankly he has a point. Even if you have a wisdom 20 cleric, if he's spent his whole life in a city/church he's not going to be able to follow a deer's track through the forest.

[OldTrees1]

I think you are deluding yourself if you think you are rolling against the "game" and not DM whim. If you want to climb that tower and the PHB gives an example of DC 20 to climb a wall, it means nothing because if the DM wants it be more challenging this wall is particularly smooth with little to no handholds so now the DC is 25 or 30.

Please remember that Pex's example was that the Str 10 Warlock with no training should be expected to fail the moat + hill + tower. I mention this because it sounds like a useful reminder since your modification had no effect. So if the 3E DM sets the wall as DC 30, then 1d20+0 (0 ranks, 10ST) will fail, as expected. This is in contrast to the coin flip between the 5E DM that just said the Warlock auto passed and the 5E DM that decided trees are DC 20.

This made Pex feel that 3E let them roll a d20+mods against the game but 5E was flipping a coin to see which DM they would get.

[Composer99]

When discussing proficiencies in 5e, can we please, please, please remember that climbing and swimming, by default, do not require checks in this edition, and calibrate expectations and discussions thusly? You might need to make a check "[a]t the DM's option" under select circumstances (PHB 182), which I am sure is used and abused by DMs, but the default rule for such things is that you just do them.

(It drives me nuts that this rule almost always seems to be forgotten or disregarded when these threads appear.)

[Segev]

Well first off I disagree that writing down fighter limits your creativity in any way. But I get the gist of your point and the honest answer is there is no perfect place to draw the line that will please everyone.

Personally I prefer the 5e system to earlier editions. It's not perfect but it does a good balancing job.

Even if there were clearer rules it doesn't stop a DM from creating an unrealistically hard DC for what should be an easy task if that's what they actually thought/wanted. In the best case what they do is help the DM assess the difficulty of something they know little to nothing about. But one of the benefits of bounded accuracy is is that it's already a lot easier to assess those difficulty and you are less likely to screw up and make something too trivial or too hard.

For your archmage situation, I can actually think of plenty of reasons why the archmage might fail an arcana check that 1st level mage might succeed at. But for sure a lot of the time the archmage shouldn't even have to roll and just auto-succeeds. Which is actually supported by the 5e rules.


All that said, I think what 5e lacked was a better DMG. The DMG should provide useful advice about how to use the skill system, how your rulings will impact the game play, what were rational/intent behind certain rules, etc...
Speaking as a DM, it’s not when I want to set an outrageously high or ridiculously low DC that I have issue with the current lack-of-system. It’s when I don’t know how hard something is, should be, or is meant to be in the milleaux of D&D.

I am pretty sure that, despite my own experience, climbing a stone wall in D&D is not meant to be “nigh impossible,” but I have no idea if it should be “trivial,” “hard,” or anything in between.

Give me benchmarks, and I can extrapolate whether something is easier or harder than them. But leave me no guidance, and the DCs will likely reflect nothing more than a weak nerd’s personal experiences. So barbarians should have no trouble with basic calculus, right? ;P

[AdAstra]

Please remember that Pex's example was that the Str 10 Warlock with no training should be expected to fail the moat + hill + tower. I mention this because it sounds like a useful reminder since your modification had no effect. So if the 3E DM sets the wall as DC 30, then 1d20+0 (0 ranks, 10ST) will fail, as expected. This is in contrast to the coin flip between the 5E DM that just said the Warlock auto passed and the 5E DM that decided trees are DC 20.

This made Pex feel that 3E let them roll a d20+mods against the game but 5E was flipping a coin to see which DM they would get.

Alternatively, you could see that as just DMs having different expectations and running different worlds. It's not like people complain when some DMs run combats as fun things you're expected to win, while others run them as brutal challenges that you will lose if you're not very careful and pick your fights.

When a DM decides "I want to run a gritty survival game where the players are always under threat by the environment" no one bats an eye beyond the standard "it's not for everyone" warning. But when a DM says "I want PCs to have a harder time climbing trees" it's somehow a massive issue with the game system?

[Pex]

I think you are deluding yourself if you think you are rolling against the "game" and not DM whim. If you want to climb that tower and the PHB gives an example of DC 20 to climb a wall, it means nothing because if the DM wants it be more challenging this wall is particularly smooth with little to no handholds so now the DC is 25 or 30.

You are pretty much always rolling against DM's whim.

Your 3E cleric was also forbidden from searching for tracks as well because it was locked behind a feat. Your 5e DM has presumably locked it behind being proficient and frankly he has a point. Even if you have a wisdom 20 cleric, if he's spent his whole life in a city/church he's not going to be able to follow a deer's track through the forest.

That's hyperbole. Of course DMs can change whatever rule they want, but if they do so for everything why bother having any rules at all? When playing the game you expect to play by the rules. House rules are fine, but they should be minimal. When I'm playing D&D I expect to be playing D&D rules, not whatever new rule DM thinks of at the spur of the moment*. By the way, in 3E the DC to climb things does change based on circumstances. I, the DM, and the game are perfectly aware the DC changes based on the wall, but that's the point. The game provides the guidelines so I know what to expect. A typical dungeon wall is DC 20 to climb in 3E. In 5E that same dungeon wall is DC 20 in Ann's game, 15 in Bob's game, No in Carl's game, and Yes in Dinah's game. That's the problem.

It's irrelevant I can't track in 3E without a feat. I'm supposed to be able to track in 5E just because I want to, but the DM won't let me and it's partly 5E's fault. Still, if I did have the feat in 3E I could track because I chose to take the feat. Whether it should cost a feat is a different matter, but given it does and I pay it, I get it. My choice. My build. Not DM whim.

Still no comment though on the DM never letting me use Passive Perception? Passive Insight? Passive anything? I'm supposed to be able to. That's also DM fiat, and 5E says that's perfectly ok. I can't be good at anything unless the DM gives permission no matter what I do when it comes to skills. It's Mother May I.

*That's not the same thing as a DM needing to adjudicate circumstances when something comes up he wasn't expecting or otherwise a situation doesn't have an obvious solution.


Please remember that Pex's example was that the Str 10 Warlock with no training should be expected to fail the moat + hill + tower. I mention this because it sounds like a useful reminder since your modification had no effect. So if the 3E DM sets the wall as DC 30, then 1d20+0 (0 ranks, 10ST) will fail, as expected. This is in contrast to the coin flip between the 5E DM that just said the Warlock auto passed and the 5E DM that decided trees are DC 20.

This made Pex feel that 3E let them roll a d20+mods against the game but 5E was flipping a coin to see which DM they would get.

Yes, that's it. I'm always pleased and a little embarrassed when someone else says exactly what I mean with better verbiage.

[Telok]

When discussing proficiencies in 5e, can we please, please, please remember that climbing and swimming, by default, do not require checks in this edition, and calibrate expectations and discussions thusly? You might need to make a check "[a]t the DM's option" under select circumstances (PHB 182), which I am sure is used and abused by DMs, but the default rule for such things is that you just do them.

(It drives me nuts that this rule almost always seems to be forgotten or disregarded when these threads appear.)

Oh we aren't forgetting. Those of us who haunt forums and want to improve their DMing know. It's the newer DMs who are trying to use the system as written in the books. Without some experience, good advice, and decent guidelines you get us old fogeys (and some new fogeys) sharing horror stories like it was the 2e and usenet days.

The fact that experienced and aware DMs can patch the skills game doesn't mean it's a good subsystem. Now can we please get back to the actual purpose of the thread?

[Kane0]

I have proposed this in a different thread, happy for others to take the idea and run with it:



Strength
Gritty
Standard
Heroic


DC 0
Climb a knotted rope
Cimb a tree
Scale a rough rock face


DC 5
Force open a stoppered bottle
Force open a rusted chest
Force open a single locked door


DC 10
Break a ceramic jar bare handed
Break a wooden plank bare handed
Break a stone bare handed


DC 15
Jump up to half again as far as normal
Jump up to twice as far as normal
Jump up to four times as far as normal


DC 20
Swim calm waters clothed or with a load
Swim a current clothed and with a load
Swim up a waterfall clothed and with a load


DC 25
Lift up to three times your carry capacity
Lift up to five times your carry capacity
Lift up to ten times your carry capacity


DC 30
Strike the ground to create an earth tremor
Hurl a handheld object over the horizon
Close an extraplanar gate



You can cross columns by going up or down one step (+/- 5 DC).

Optional bonus to be explored: You can only attempt up to a DC 20 by default. Proficiency and Expertise each unlock one step higher (plus maybe other benefits like Advantage and extra dice from Guidance/Bardic Inspiration if you don't want to hard-cap DC 25/30)

[AdAstra]

Oh we aren't forgetting. Those of us who haunt forums and want to improve their DMing know. It's the newer DMs who are trying to use the system as written in the books. Without some experience, good advice, and decent guidelines you get us old fogeys (and some new fogeys) sharing horror stories like it was the 2e and usenet days.

The fact that experienced and aware DMs can patch the skills game doesn't mean it's a good subsystem. Now can we please get back to the actual purpose of the thread?

How common is this issue though? Obviously anecdotes are not worth nearly as much as well-collected and organized data, but as someone relatively new to DnD (about 3 years) I’ve played with mostly new and rookie DMs, largely in game stores, with two online games. Some used modules, others homebrew campaigns. So I have a decent data set of DMs without significant experience.

Perhaps it’s an outlier, but of the 7 or so DMs I’ve played with for a substantial length of time, none have had any issues using the skill system. And I would not describe any of them as having any notable degree of rules expertise. In play things worked out well, and I’ve never felt like I rolled high enough but failed anyway, or had to roll for things that shouldn’t have needed them. Checks were almost always called for at reasonable moments. And those were hardly perfect DMs, but of the issues I’ve had, none have been related to the application of skills.

[Unoriginal]

Oh we aren't forgetting. Those of us who haunt forums and want to improve their DMing know. It's the newer DMs who are trying to use the system as written in the books. Without some experience, good advice, and decent guidelines you get us old fogeys (and some new fogeys) sharing horror stories like it was the 2e and usenet days.

The fact that experienced and aware DMs can patch the skills game doesn't mean it's a good subsystem. Now can we please get back to the actual purpose of the thread?

What? It's not "experienced and aware DMs can patch the skills game" it's "anyone who read the rules know that climbing and swimming, by default, do not require checks in this edition".



I think you are deluding yourself if you think you are rolling against the "game" and not DM whim. If you want to climb that tower and the PHB gives an example of DC 20 to climb a wall, it means nothing because if the DM wants it be more challenging this wall is particularly smooth with little to no handholds so now the DC is 25 or 30.

You are pretty much always rolling against DM's whim.

The only thing 5e did was stopping pretending the DM didn't have the power of deciding whatever the DC is.




Your 3E cleric was also forbidden from searching for tracks as well because it was locked behind a feat. Your 5e DM has presumably locked it behind being proficient and frankly he has a point. Even if you have a wisdom 20 cleric, if he's spent his whole life in a city/church he's not going to be able to follow a deer's track through the forest.

I would argue that searching dear tracks isn't different enough from searching anything else to warrant "locking it behind being proficient". Someone who is trained will obviously know what and where to search better, what day-old tracks look compared to hour-old ones, and how to follow a trail without getting lost better than someone who is not, but I don't see why that'd prevent anyone from trying.

[Segev]

The only thing 5e did was stopping pretending the DM didn't have the power of deciding whatever the DC is. .

It also took away useful guidance for DMs who are truly unsure what constitutes a “difficult” jump. (Or other ability check.)

“You can jump further than your strength score in feet with a successful Strength (Athletics) check,” say the rules (though I paraphrase). Nowhere does it say how difficult a check it is to jump how much further than your automatic jump distance. As a DM, this is frustrating to me because I am left having to guess, with no clue whether an extra foot is “hard” or an extra (Strength) feet is “easy!”

[Unoriginal]

It also took away useful guidance for DMs who are truly unsure what constitutes a “difficult” jump. (Or other ability check.)

“You can jump further than your strength score in feet with a successful Strength (Athletics) check,” say the rules (though I paraphrase). Nowhere does it say how difficult a check it is to jump how much further than your automatic jump distance. As a DM, this is frustrating to me because I am left having to guess, with no clue whether an extra foot is “hard” or an extra (Strength) feet is “easy!”

While it is true that it isn't a style of play that fits everyone, and that it is frustrating when the game supports a style of play that doesn't fit you (just like the 3.X way didn't fit everyone and way frustrating for those for which it didn't), it's not a question of "having to guess", it's "having to decide".

There is no clue whether an extra foot is hard or easy because there is nothing to clue about, it's hard or easy because of what you want and decide.

3.X pretended the DM's power had limits and pretended there was strong inter-DM consistency in how things were done. It even semi-pretended that a player could open a book, point at the text on the page, and the DM had to follow it.

To its credits, many people, both players and DMs, did believe it and still believe it to this day. The truth is that the 3.X DM could decide that rolling a 20 when jumping meant you could leap above tall buildings and that rolling a 1 when attacking meant you decapitated yourself and that all caster classes would be gestalt with Cleric, and that "the player should never get what they want". Always been the case, and always will be. Just like it was the case in 2e and 4e and the first time Gygax asked his kids if they'd like to try exploring Castle Greyhawk.

[Dienekes]

I think that a lot of the issues stated here would be -if not negated- dramatically lessened if more classes got abilities focused on using skills.

Bounded accuracy means everyone can try to use a skill. That’s good.

It also means that the high level, proficient in skill character who maybe isn’t focusing on the Ability Score can fail a DC 10 fairly often even at level 20. Something that’s supposed to be easy.

Personally, I’d want to keep the improbable chance of success, and at high enough level remove the improbable chance of failure. But there is a class that already does this, the Rogue with their Reliable Talent feature. I kind of think this minimum roll provided to other classes would make the system smoother.

At level 5ish having each class get a handful of skills that they can reliable accomplish consistently does a decent step toward solving making the heroes get features they can just reliably perform easier. And if 10 is too high at level 5, maybe knock it down to 7. Then with proficiency and a +0 modifier they’re still guaranteed to pass Easy checks, but still have a chance of failure for Medium checks. At level 11ish we can bump it up to a minimum 10, Medium difficulty becomes guaranteed with a +1 modifier or a +0 at 13th level. While the Barbarian that maxed Str and is Proficient in Athletics will make Hard checks with ease. But will always still need to roll to attempt the impossible.

On the topic of skill DCs, I’m personally on the camp that there should be a bit more detail in how they’re presented. Maybe not the lists and charts that will constantly be needed to look back at. But more something of presenting what is meant by Easy, Very Easy and whatnot. And more importantly what type of DCs should be thrown around at Adventurers at different levels. Though this would have to be worded delicately. We know how much of a stink 4e got when they listed what DCs should be considered a challenge for each level of play.

[Unoriginal]

We know how much of a stink 4e got when they listed what DCs should be considered a challenge for each level of play.

4e got a stink because the difficulty of the same task increased the better at the task the character became.

[Dienekes]

4e got a stink because the difficulty of the same task increased the better at the task the character became.

So here’s the thing. There is mechanically no difference between saying “A skills DC ranges from 5 for very easy tasks to 30 for impossible tasks. But at level 1 a decent encounter should only use very easy and easy checks. At level 5, maybe create challenges of Easy and Medium checks. To make certain the players remain challenged and have a progression.”

As opposed to “Using a skill at level 1 an easy roll is 5 a difficult roll is 10. At level 5, an easy roll is 10, difficult is 15.”

It’s the same thing. 4E just did a terrible job of disguising the language. So for lock picking it appeared all locks were improving as you leveled up instead of saying, yeah at this level you shouldn’t really be facing a peasants barn lock anymore. Now your adventures should be about getting into the king’s treasury locks.

And that’s why it needs to be worded delicately.

[Dr. Cliché]

It’s the same thing. 4E just did a terrible job of disguising the language. So for lock picking it appeared all locks were improving as you leveled up instead of saying, yeah at this level you shouldn’t really be facing a peasants barn lock anymore. Now your adventures should be about getting into the king’s treasury locks.

I don't see why you'd design a system that way in the first place.

Why not just make the DC relative to the challenge, but suggest that players should be facing higher level challenges as they level up?

That way the lock of a barn door doesn't get harder and harder the more experience you have with lockpicking. :smallwink:

[GooeyChewie]

My method uses the same fundamental system as the DMG. It just proposes that Class and Background should factor into the difficulty of task when choosing the difficulty on the 5-30 scale.
They already do. Both class and background give you skill proficiency options, and having proficiency with a skill makes it easier for that particular character to hit a target DC. You do not need to also lower the DC for individual players to get this effect.

That said, you might want to check out the Background Proficiency variant option on page 264 of the DMG. In this variant, players do not get proficiency with skills; instead the DM determines if the character's background warrants applying proficiency to the check.


That's hyperbole. Of course DMs can change whatever rule they want, but if they do so for everything why bother having any rules at all? When playing the game you expect to play by the rules. House rules are fine, but they should be minimal. When I'm playing D&D I expect to be playing D&D rules, not whatever new rule DM thinks of at the spur of the moment*. By the way, in 3E the DC to climb things does change based on circumstances. I, the DM, and the game are perfectly aware the DC changes based on the wall, but that's the point. The game provides the guidelines so I know what to expect. A typical dungeon wall is DC 20 to climb in 3E. In 5E that same dungeon wall is DC 20 in Ann's game, 15 in Bob's game, No in Carl's game, and Yes in Dinah's game. That's the problem.

It's irrelevant I can't track in 3E without a feat. I'm supposed to be able to track in 5E just because I want to, but the DM won't let me and it's partly 5E's fault. Still, if I did have the feat in 3E I could track because I chose to take the feat. Whether it should cost a feat is a different matter, but given it does and I pay it, I get it. My choice. My build. Not DM whim.

Still no comment though on the DM never letting me use Passive Perception? Passive Insight? Passive anything? I'm supposed to be able to. That's also DM fiat, and 5E says that's perfectly ok. I can't be good at anything unless the DM gives permission no matter what I do when it comes to skills. It's Mother May I.

*That's not the same thing as a DM needing to adjudicate circumstances when something comes up he wasn't expecting or otherwise a situation doesn't have an obvious solution.
The 3E wall, Ann's wall, Bob's wall, Carl's wall and Dinah's wall aren't the same wall. If the wall is in a published adventure, the adventure should have a DC listed. Otherwise, they are completely different walls and the difficulty of climbing one has no bearing on the difficulty of climbing another. In that case you can ask the DM how difficult your character believes that particular wall would be to climb. By RAW, under normal circumstances, Ann should reply "hard," Bob should reply "medium difficulty," Carl should reply "literally impossible," Dinah should reply "super easy, barely an inconvenience," and the 3E DM should look up enough modifiers to justify their 20 DC (oh, uh, I already described the surface as rough natural rock wall, which should be 15, so, um, you suddenly realize it's slippery for a +5 to the DC!). The 5e DMs have the freedom to give more detailed descriptions without taking the risk that those descriptions should technically change the DC. I think we may disagree as to whether that's a good thing or a bad thing.

As for the tracking and passive perception/insight, you're literally describing situations in which the DM is not following the rules as written, and then blaming the rules as written. Rather than blaming the skill system in 5e, you should have a conversation with your DM about how the fact that they are not properly using the skill system is hurting your gameplay experience.


The only thing 5e did was stopping pretending the DM didn't have the power of deciding whatever the DC is.
Absolutely true. The DM could always decide on whatever DC they wanted; previous editions just limited how they could describe the challenge once the DC was chosen.

[Dienekes]

I don't see why you'd design a system that way in the first place.

Why not just make the DC relative to the challenge, but suggest that players should be facing higher level challenges as they level up?

That way the lock of a barn door doesn't get harder and harder the more experience you have with lockpicking. :smallwink:

Mostly because the charts in question were in the DMG as a suggested DC for skill challenges. It never said anything about the “locks” in question. Just what the DC of an appropriate challenge would be for every level. People took that to mean the locks were getting harder. As opposed to getting more difficult challenges.

Personally, I think that is useful for a GM. To understand what the difficulty of an appropriate skill check should be for a player at a given level to challenge them. Terms like Easy and Medium are vague and result in the problem of GMs throwing out strange DCs like Pex is complaining about. While saying: these numbers are what most challenges at this level are for the players to face. Is far more concrete and harder to mess up.

But to avoid the complaining, there should be a caveat that the locks are not getting more difficult. You’re facing more difficult locks. When I read it I thought that was so obvious it did not need to be stated. But the amount of complaints about it proved me wrong.

[Justin Sane]

The 3E wall, Ann's wall, Bob's wall, Carl's wall and Dinah's wall aren't the same wall.That's exactly the problem. Language is inherently lossy, so 3E's approach of "unless stated otherwise from the DM, dungeon walls are DC 20 to climb" conveys much, much more information than 5E's "ask your DM for a ruling".

Because this falls into the expectations issue. If you expect your character to be good at something (and bad at something else), it creates all kinds of cognitive dissonance when the dice tell you your Wizard couldn't translate those arcane runes, but the Barbarian could.

And that dissonance, I think, is why some people are dissatisfied with 5E's skill system.

[Man_Over_Game]

That's exactly the problem. Language is inherently lossy, so 3E's approach of "unless stated otherwise from the DM, dungeon walls are DC 20 to climb" conveys much, much more information than 5E's "ask your DM for a ruling".

Because this falls into the expectations issue. If you expect your character to be good at something (and bad at something else), it creates all kinds of cognitive dissonance when the dice tell you your Wizard couldn't translate those arcane runes, but the Barbarian could.

And that dissonance, I think, is why some people are dissatisfied with 5E's skill system.

That's fair.

5e's "DC 20 is Difficult, DC 25 is Nearly Impossible", doesn't really give you much perspective to work with. What's a "Difficult" wall when the Barbarian is the only one climbing?

[MinotaurWarrior]

That's fair.

5e's "DC 20 is Difficult, DC 25 is Nearly Impossible", doesn't really give you much perspective to work with. What's a "Difficult" wall when the Barbarian is the only one climbing?

It's also just wrong. DC 20 without risk of failure will be accomplished by literally anyone without a penalty to the roll. It is not difficult. So a 10ft wall with DC 20 is no challenge out of combat. A DC 10 wall that's 20ft tall and will inflict 1d6 falling damage, on the other hand, is a much bigger challenge.

The guideline DCs just are not helpful at all. Trying to come up with appropriate DCs and appropriate skill challenges is left up entirely to the DM with very little help or resources.

I find this especially frustrating in 5E because bounded accuracy means they wouldn't have had to resort to making up a bunch of nonsensical examples for extremely high DCs. A relatively small number of example challenges would cover it.

[Segev]

While it is true that it isn't a style of play that fits everyone, and that it is frustrating when the game supports a style of play that doesn't fit you (just like the 3.X way didn't fit everyone and way frustrating for those for which it didn't), it's not a question of "having to guess", it's "having to decide".

There is no clue whether an extra foot is hard or easy because there is nothing to clue about, it's hard or easy because of what you want and decide.

3.X pretended the DM's power had limits and pretended there was strong inter-DM consistency in how things were done. It even semi-pretended that a player could open a book, point at the text on the page, and the DM had to follow it.

To its credits, many people, both players and DMs, did believe it and still believe it to this day. The truth is that the 3.X DM could decide that rolling a 20 when jumping meant you could leap above tall buildings and that rolling a 1 when attacking meant you decapitated yourself and that all caster classes would be gestalt with Cleric, and that "the player should never get what they want". Always been the case, and always will be. Just like it was the case in 2e and 4e and the first time Gygax asked his kids if they'd like to try exploring Castle Greyhawk.

Sounds like it’s impossible to jump further than your strength or climb a rope, and easy to do calculus, then.

Because I have no metric other than what I can do, myself.

[Kyutaru]

Sounds like it’s impossible to jump further than your strength or climb a rope, and easy to do calculus, then.

Because I have no metric other than what I can do, myself.
This is insightful.

I run into this problem even in the real world where people doubt my accomplishments or the ease with which I find something because the 99% of them can't do it or find that it doesn't work that way for them. But when you're part of the exception to the rule because you're well-informed you get told that what you do every day is impossible by folks who can only dream of it.

[OldTrees1]

It's also just wrong. DC 20 without risk of failure will be accomplished by literally anyone without a penalty to the roll. It is not difficult. So a 10ft wall with DC 20 is no challenge out of combat. A DC 10 wall that's 20ft tall and will inflict 1d6 falling damage, on the other hand, is a much bigger challenge.

Agreed

When there is no penalty for failure on a skill usage, and it can be retried indefinitely, but is not an automatic fail or success, then the skill system and (DC - Mod)/RNG_Size is really just saying how long the usage took to complete. I think 5E suggests abstracting this to auto succeed or fail? Personally I like abstracting the 3E take 20 rules to take into account the (DC - Mod)/RNG_Size instead.

I agree usages outside of this niche are bigger challenges.
When there is a penalty for failure, you want to know how many penalties happened.
When there is a limit on retries, you want to know if it succeeded in time.
If time lost is a relevant penalty for failure, you want to know when.

I see the skill system be tested the most when it is used several times in a turn with no direct penalty for failure, but the failure eats up time/actions that turn and this limits how much can be done in that time/turn. This use case is one where we really wish characters got better enough at skills that old usages become automatic and new usages can be added. Bounded Accuracy is my bane for this use case (although it does help opposed checks)

[Pex]

They already do. Both class and background give you skill proficiency options, and having proficiency with a skill makes it easier for that particular character to hit a target DC. You do not need to also lower the DC for individual players to get this effect.

That said, you might want to check out the Background Proficiency variant option on page 264 of the DMG. In this variant, players do not get proficiency with skills; instead the DM determines if the character's background warrants applying proficiency to the check.


The 3E wall, Ann's wall, Bob's wall, Carl's wall and Dinah's wall aren't the same wall. If the wall is in a published adventure, the adventure should have a DC listed. Otherwise, they are completely different walls and the difficulty of climbing one has no bearing on the difficulty of climbing another. In that case you can ask the DM how difficult your character believes that particular wall would be to climb. By RAW, under normal circumstances, Ann should reply "hard," Bob should reply "medium difficulty," Carl should reply "literally impossible," Dinah should reply "super easy, barely an inconvenience," and the 3E DM should look up enough modifiers to justify their 20 DC (oh, uh, I already described the surface as rough natural rock wall, which should be 15, so, um, you suddenly realize it's slippery for a +5 to the DC!). The 5e DMs have the freedom to give more detailed descriptions without taking the risk that those descriptions should technically change the DC. I think we may disagree as to whether that's a good thing or a bad thing.

As for the tracking and passive perception/insight, you're literally describing situations in which the DM is not following the rules as written, and then blaming the rules as written. Rather than blaming the skill system in 5e, you should have a conversation with your DM about how the fact that they are not properly using the skill system is hurting your gameplay experience.


Absolutely true. The DM could always decide on whatever DC they wanted; previous editions just limited how they could describe the challenge once the DC was chosen.

It's the same wall as much as it's the same platemail, the same long sword, the same Bless spell, the same saving throw against a PC's class ability.

The DM is following the rules because the rules say the DM decides if there's a roll or not, and this DM decides there must always be a roll.

[Christew]

The 3E wall, Ann's wall, Bob's wall, Carl's wall and Dinah's wall aren't the same wall. If the wall is in a published adventure, the adventure should have a DC listed. Otherwise, they are completely different walls and the difficulty of climbing one has no bearing on the difficulty of climbing another. In that case you can ask the DM how difficult your character believes that particular wall would be to climb. By RAW, under normal circumstances, Ann should reply "hard," Bob should reply "medium difficulty," Carl should reply "literally impossible," Dinah should reply "super easy, barely an inconvenience," and the 3E DM should look up enough modifiers to justify their 20 DC (oh, uh, I already described the surface as rough natural rock wall, which should be 15, so, um, you suddenly realize it's slippery for a +5 to the DC!). The 5e DMs have the freedom to give more detailed descriptions without taking the risk that those descriptions should technically change the DC. I think we may disagree as to whether that's a good thing or a bad thing.

As for the tracking and passive perception/insight, you're literally describing situations in which the DM is not following the rules as written, and then blaming the rules as written. Rather than blaming the skill system in 5e, you should have a conversation with your DM about how the fact that they are not properly using the skill system is hurting your gameplay experience.


Absolutely true. The DM could always decide on whatever DC they wanted; previous editions just limited how they could describe the challenge once the DC was chosen.
+1. Couldn't agree more. I really appreciate the space 5e provides for DM description. It seems like a fair number of the objections to the skill system can be filed under adversarial or inexperienced DMing. I'm not in favor of giving extremely detailed DC descriptions (a la 3e) because I recall adversarial players halting play to point to a DC chart because the DM accidentally used a descriptive term that was tied to a numerical value (such as slippery).

In the end, the game is not impervious to disruptive individuals (be they DM or player) and no amount of system detail is going to change that. Personally, I think trust that your DM will be competent and consistent is a prerequisite for play (why I don't do AL). A simple discussion of skill system philosophy in session zero should be sufficient to avoid most of the pitfalls being discussed here.

Beyond that, I agree with others that more fleshed out advice for DMs on when/how to call for skill rolls is what is needed, not a return to 2e or 3e style skill usage. I actually really like the 5e system when it is applied correctly.

[Pex]

Agreed

When there is no penalty for failure on a skill usage, and it can be retried indefinitely, but is not an automatic fail or success, then the skill system and (DC - Mod)/RNG_Size is really just saying how long the usage took to complete. I think 5E suggests abstracting this to auto succeed or fail? Personally I like abstracting the 3E take 20 rules to take into account the (DC - Mod)/RNG_Size instead.

I agree usages outside of this niche are bigger challenges.
When there is a penalty for failure, you want to know how many penalties happened.
When there is a limit on retries, you want to know if it succeeded in time.
If time lost is a relevant penalty for failure, you want to know when.

I see the skill system be tested the most when it is used several times in a turn with no direct penalty for failure, but the failure eats up time/actions that turn and this limits how much can be done in that time/turn. This use case is one where we really wish characters got better enough at skills that old usages become automatic and new usages can be added. Bounded Accuracy is my bane for this use case (although it does help opposed checks)

Yes, 5E does say that. If there's no chance of failure don't roll. The problem is different DMs have different interpretations of what constitutes no chance of failure. One DM felt it perfectly fine for me to autosucceed on swimming a moat, climbing rocks, and climbing a wall. A different DM however thinks it's very hard to climb a tree. I have one DM who thinks I cannot rely on my natural talents to make basic observations about people or places while another says I can to look for traps in dungeons. That's what causes the problems. There's no reference point to say what is easy or Hard, need to roll or don't roll. That's all left to DM whim, and that's why my choices as a player don't matter.

[Unoriginal]

Sounds like it’s impossible to jump further than your strength or climb a rope, and easy to do calculus, then.

If you DECIDE that it is impossible, then it is, yes.




Because I have no metric other than what I can do, myself.

You can't imagine someone climbing a rope?

[Kyutaru]

If you DECIDE that it is impossible, then it is, yes.

You can't imagine someone climbing a rope?
Pretty sure the purpose of providing an easy to digest example is to ensure it's not misrepresented when you go to the complex ones. Try imagining how a bard can convince a king to do something he wouldn't want to. Unless you have exceptional experience with charismatic manipulators that one is going to be tugging at your disbelief. Of course the king could just be an idiot... but in that case the bard is doing him a favor and should just take over his kingdom before someone else (like his MOST TRUSTED VIZIER) puts a dagger in his back.

[OldTrees1]

Yes, 5E does say that. If there's no chance of failure don't roll. The problem is different DMs have different interpretations of what constitutes no chance of failure. One DM felt it perfectly fine for me to autosucceed on swimming a moat, climbing rocks, and climbing a wall. A different DM however thinks it's very hard to climb a tree. I have one DM who thinks I cannot rely on my natural talents to make basic observations about people or places while another says I can to look for traps in dungeons. That's what causes the problems. There's no reference point to say what is easy or Hard, need to roll or don't roll. That's all left to DM whim, and that's why my choices as a player don't matter.

I understand there are 2 issues here:
1) The DM + system did not successfully inform the player (Pex) about what their character was a capable of before the player had to make plans based on that capability. Since the DM + system did not convey a reference to the player, the player feels their choices were uninformed, and thus didn't matter.
2) Since the system gave the DM no reference frame, and gave the player (Pex) no reference frame, the reference frame the DM chooses is highly DM subjective on everything. This made the player feel some of their choices at character creation were uninformed, and thus didn't matter. See the ST 10 Warlock with no Athletics being able to act like an olympic athlete.

[Telok]

I think we're all pretty well agreed that the system offloads basically all the work onto the DM, and that it doesn'y explain to or support less experienced DMs or DMs who don't how difficult something would be. And that run as written, without DM intervention, produces wonky inconsistent results like 6 int apes being able to beat 20th level wizards at arcana checks.

Personally I favor ditching WotC's sacred d20 cow and going back to 3d6 or 2d10, with advantage adding dice. I also do a point system where most tasks have X points to complete and they get roll-DC points towards it. That moves things more towards an ac/hp model where a single roll low roll doesn't sink the entire task.

I do weird jumping. DC = str, +/-1' per 1 away from the DC. It's oddly rewarding for str 10 & expertise though.

[GooeyChewie]

It's the same wall as much as it's the same platemail, the same long sword, the same Bless spell, the same saving throw against a PC's class ability.
Encountering a wall has more in common with encountering an NPC than an item, spell or saving throw. Just because you met an innkeeper in Ann's campaign doesn't mean the innkeeper you meet in Bob's campaign is the same person, or acts similarly at all. Likewise just because Carl's campaign featured a perfectly smooth, flat, vertical wall doesn't mean Dinah's wall couldn't have lots of footholds and convenient knotted rope.


The DM is following the rules because the rules say the DM decides if there's a roll or not, and this DM decides there must always be a roll.
I'll give you that the DM is technically within the rules in disallowing rolls for things which a reasonable person would consider possible, and for totally ignoring passive ability checks. Of course, the DM is also within the rules to send an ancient dragon to wipe out your level 1 party for an easy TPK. If the DM is acting in bad faith, that's not the fault of the system.


I think we're all pretty well agreed that the system offloads basically all the work onto the DM, and that it doesn'y explain to or support less experienced DMs or DMs who don't how difficult something would be. And that run as written, without DM intervention, produces wonky inconsistent results like 6 int apes being able to beat 20th level wizards at arcana checks.
I'm not in agreement on these points.

I find 5e's skill system removes a lot of the work for me as a DM. I have only a single chart to remember, and if somebody does something unexpected I don't have to do any cross-referencing to see if I've accidentally thrown in some key words that would change the DC. Even the newest and most unimaginative DM can say, word for word, "that looks like a hard task to you" and justify a DC 20 without having to match up fluff.

As for the ape situation, that sort of thing is exactly why 5e has the DM decide when a roll is appropriate. The DM can decide that the 6 Int ape has no chance of success and simply not roll. This rule exists so the DM can properly adjudicate things which should not be possible. When the DM uses the rule as a weapon to stop the players from doing things which should be possible, then the DM is the problem, not the rule.

[AdAstra]

I think we're all pretty well agreed that the system offloads basically all the work onto the DM, and that it doesn'y explain to or support less experienced DMs or DMs who don't how difficult something would be. And that run as written, without DM intervention, produces wonky inconsistent results like 6 int apes being able to beat 20th level wizards at arcana checks.

Personally I favor ditching WotC's sacred d20 cow and going back to 3d6 or 2d10, with advantage adding dice. I also do a point system where most tasks have X points to complete and they get roll-DC points towards it. That moves things more towards an ac/hp model where a single roll low roll doesn't sink the entire task.

I do weird jumping. DC = str, +/-1' per 1 away from the DC. It's oddly rewarding for str 10 & expertise though.

Are we, though? I just explained how my experience very emphatically does not match what you are saying. My less experienced DMs have never had these problems. And those DMs were far from perfect.

[Segev]

If you DECIDE that it is impossible, then it is, yes.




You can't imagine someone climbing a rope?

I have never been able to do it, myself. I have absolutely no idea how hard it is, other than “impossible for me, and amazing when I see others do it.”

Sure, I’ll concede that “it’s impossible” is hyperbole. But how hard is it? Nigh impossible (DC 30)? Easy (DC 5, so you only need a 14 Star and 1st level proficiency to auto-succeed)? Trivial to the point of not requiring a roll despite the known existence of perfectly healthy humans (e.g. me) who can’t do it at all?

I don’t know what the game expects it to be, and thus I am prone to using my own experience. Is it fair or good DMing to say it’s DC 30 to climb a rope based on my experience?

If not, is it fair to say it’s DC 25?

20?

10?

Where should I set it, and how am I supposed to know that?

[Unoriginal]

I have never been able to do it, myself. I have absolutely no idea how hard it is, other than “impossible for me, and amazing when I see others do it.”

Sure, I’ll concede that “it’s impossible” is hyperbole. But how hard is it? Nigh impossible (DC 30)? Easy (DC 5, so you only need a 14 Star and 1st level proficiency to auto-succeed)? Trivial to the point of not requiring a roll despite the known existence of perfectly healthy humans (e.g. me) who can’t do it at all?

I don’t know what the game expects it to be, and thus I am prone to using my own experience. Is it fair or good DMing to say it’s DC 30 to climb a rope based on my experience?

If not, is it fair to say it’s DC 25?

20?

10?

Where should I set it, and how am I supposed to know that?

Before I answer this question, I have two of my own, if you don't mind:

1) do you ever make your own monsters/NPCs?

2) if the answer to 1) is "yes", how do you decide what AC you want them to have?

[Pex]

Encountering a wall has more in common with encountering an NPC than an item, spell or saving throw. Just because you met an innkeeper in Ann's campaign doesn't mean the innkeeper you meet in Bob's campaign is the same person, or acts similarly at all. Likewise just because Carl's campaign featured a perfectly smooth, flat, vertical wall doesn't mean Dinah's wall couldn't have lots of footholds and convenient knotted rope.


I'll give you that the DM is technically within the rules in disallowing rolls for things which a reasonable person would consider possible, and for totally ignoring passive ability checks. Of course, the DM is also within the rules to send an ancient dragon to wipe out your level 1 party for an easy TPK. If the DM is acting in bad faith, that's not the fault of the system.



And we're talking in circles.

As I said, I don't buy it that every plate mail in every campaign is AC 18, every non magical long sword in every campaign deals 1d8 damage, every class ability DC in every campaign is 8 + relevant ability modifier + proficiency, but a typical dungeon wall having the same climb DC in every campaign is a horrible thing to contemplate. If Carl says it's a plain stone wall and Dinah says it's a plain stone wall they should have the same DC. When Bob says it's a stone wall that is greased a little I don't expect it to have the same DC or maybe roll with disadvantage because it's no longer a plain stone wall.

[AdAstra]

Oi, I still remember back when there was a thread for complaining about the lack of skill DC tables (not too long ago really). Then one of the people who wanted DC tables had the great idea of creating a thread to actually establish some, and I was thrilled to participate! But one thing I noticed is that of the people who meaningfully contributed to that thread, the vast majority were people who were opposed to skill tables in the base game, including me. That thread died depressingly soon.

I'm still proud of my climb DCs though.

[Pex]

Oi, I still remember back when there was a thread for complaining about the lack of skill DC tables (not too long ago really). Then one of the people who wanted DC tables had the great idea of creating a thread to actually establish some, and I was thrilled to participate! But one thing I noticed is that of the people who meaningfully contributed to that thread, the vast majority were people who were opposed to skill tables in the base game, including me. That thread died depressingly soon.

I'm still proud of my climb DCs though.

Anyone can make DC tables if they wanted to. I could for my own game as DM. Doesn't matter how many homebrew DC tables I see on the internet. They don't solve my problem because I'm not in those games. They won't be used by the DMs I play with or will play with in the future. They're not officially published tables to be used as reference. If by some coincidence chance I play with a DM who uses one or made his own, great for that game but won't help for another game with a different DM. I appreciate the effort, and they prove it could have been done. The 5E designers purposely chose not to. I know full well that was their intent. I find that was a mistake. They should have had tables. Hopefully they'll exist in hypothetical 6E, and fingers cross they surprise me and have them in a future 5E splat book such that if I have to ask the DM what rules are we using this time, I can at least ask him are we using these example DC tables and rules for skill use. If not I deal if I still want to play but hopefully yes.

[AdAstra]

Anyone can make DC tables if they wanted to. I could for my own game as DM. Doesn't matter how many homebrew DC tables I see on the internet. They don't solve my problem because I'm not in those games. They won't be used by the DMs I play with or will play with in the future. They're not officially published tables to be used as reference. If by some coincidence chance I play with a DM who uses one or made his own, great for that game but won't help for another game with a different DM. I appreciate the effort, and they prove it could have been done. The 5E designers purposely chose not to. I know full well that was their intent. I find that was a mistake. They should have had tables. Hopefully they'll exist in hypothetical 6E, and fingers cross they surprise me and have them in a future 5E splat book such that if I have to ask the DM what rules are we using this time, I can at least ask him are we using these example DC tables and rules for skill use. If not I deal if I still want to play but hopefully yes.

And I hope they don’t, because if there’s one thing I learned from participating in that thread, it’s that people have very different expectations of how DnD should handle difficulty of actions, but they *understand* their expectations and how they differ from others’. People may not agree on how to set DCs, but anyone who puts any thought into it understands it.

If 6e had tables, best case they’re of mild use to some players. Less than best case, they’re actively detrimental to how people think of skills. Worst case, the DCs are garbage, but become standard anyway because it’s “designer intent” and it wouldn’t be fair to deprive people of their “shared expectations”

[GooeyChewie]

And we're talking in circles.

As I said, I don't buy it that every plate mail in every campaign is AC 18, every non magical long sword in every campaign deals 1d8 damage, every class ability DC in every campaign is 8 + relevant ability modifier + proficiency, but a typical dungeon wall having the same climb DC in every campaign is a horrible thing to contemplate. If Carl says it's a plain stone wall and Dinah says it's a plain stone wall they should have the same DC. When Bob says it's a stone wall that is greased a little I don't expect it to have the same DC or maybe roll with disadvantage because it's no longer a plain stone wall.

I agree that we're talking in circles, as I've already pointed out that these mechanics are not a good comparison to skill check DCs. Better comparisons would be things like the NPCs you meet, the type and CR of enemies you face and the tactics those enemies implement. It's no coincidence that the static things you mentioned are player options, while the things I mentioned are DM-controlled and thus DM-dependent. To paraphrase you, I don't buy it that NPCs can be different in every campaign, the enemies can be different in every campaign, every encounter can be different, but different DMs using different walls is a horrible thing to contemplate.

I don't think it was a mistake to exclude all the DC guide tables in favor of one simple difficulty table. If a hypothetical 6e reintroduces those tables, I most likely won't DM that edition because I don't want to have to deal with all that cross-referencing to double-check my descriptions or players telling me that my DCs are objectively wrong. Beyond that, I'm happy to say we simply disagree on this matter and leave it be.

[OldTrees1]

And I hope they don’t, because if there’s one thing I learned from participating in that thread, it’s that people have very different expectations of how DnD should handle difficulty of actions, but they *understand* their expectations and how they differ from others’. People may not agree on how to set DCs, but anyone who puts any thought into it understands it.
You might be underestimating the amount of thought that has been put into this topic.


If 6e had tables, best case they’re of mild use to some players. Less than best case, they’re actively detrimental to how people think of skills. Worst case, the DCs are garbage, but become standard anyway because it’s “designer intent” and it wouldn’t be fair to deprive people of their “shared expectations”

It sounds like you think there are 2 bad solutions. You prefer one bad solution and Pex prefers the other bad solution. Can there be a good solution? Can there be a good solution that WotC can implement?

[Bosh]

Agreed

When there is no penalty for failure on a skill usage, and it can be retried indefinitely, but is not an automatic fail or success, then the skill system and (DC - Mod)/RNG_Size is really just saying how long the usage took to complete. I think 5E suggests abstracting this to auto succeed or fail? Personally I like abstracting the 3E take 20 rules to take into account the (DC - Mod)/RNG_Size instead.

I agree usages outside of this niche are bigger challenges.
When there is a penalty for failure, you want to know how many penalties happened.
When there is a limit on retries, you want to know if it succeeded in time.
If time lost is a relevant penalty for failure, you want to know when.

I see the skill system be tested the most when it is used several times in a turn with no direct penalty for failure, but the failure eats up time/actions that turn and this limits how much can be done in that time/turn. This use case is one where we really wish characters got better enough at skills that old usages become automatic and new usages can be added. Bounded Accuracy is my bane for this use case (although it does help opposed checks)

Well there should always be a penalty to failure: the use of precious time. That's why Gygax got all shouty and all caps when he talked about how important tracking time is.

Time, morale and encumbrance are all things that have fallen by the wayside a bit since they're annoying to track but which I'd like to see more of in the future if they're streamlined (slot based encumbrance etc.).

[Pex]

Well there should always be a penalty to failure: the use of precious time. That's why Gygax got all shouty and all caps when he talked about how important tracking time is.

Time, morale and encumbrance are all things that have fallen by the wayside a bit since they're annoying to track but which I'd like to see more of in the future if they're streamlined (slot based encumbrance etc.).

You will inevitably find people complaining slot based encumbrance is too videogamey. I personally don't object to the concept. The devil is in the details of implementation. It's bookkeeping, but it might be fun bookkeeping. It could be an interesting way to make Strength more useful, say one extra generic slot per +1 modifier.

[Segev]

Before I answer this question, I have two of my own, if you don't mind:

1) do you ever make your own monsters/NPCs?

2) if the answer to 1) is "yes", how do you decide what AC you want them to have?

I choose it based on a plethora of example monsters that are of the appropriate CR and which have example ACs to work from.

I am not asking for nearly so many examples of ability check DCs. But if I had even a tiny fraction of the number of monsters there are in skill DCs to work from, that’d do the trick.

[Unoriginal]

I choose it based on a plethora of example monsters that are of the appropriate CR and which have example ACs to work from.

I am not asking for nearly so many examples of ability check DCs. But if I had even a tiny fraction of the number of monsters there are in skill DCs to work from, that’d do the trick.

I think I wasn't clear in my question. Let me try to reformulate.

You are thinking about making a NPC. What makes you decide that this particular NPC should have low/mid-range/high AC rather than something else?

[OldTrees1]

I think I wasn't clear in my question. Let me try to reformulate.

You are thinking about making a NPC. What makes you decide that this particular NPC should have low/mid-range/high AC rather than something else?

You might need to reformulate further. It still sounds like they answered that question, they look at the related examples. Do similar NPCs have low/mid-range/high AC?

An example: There is going to be an encounter with a ranged hoser, some a front line of some kinds of orc, and a scaled quadruped.
What AC do similar ranged hosers have?
What AC do similar front line orcs have?
What AC do similar scaled quadrupeds have?
Yes, these are 3 difference lenses to find similar examples.

[AdAstra]

You might be underestimating the amount of thought that has been put into this topic.



It sounds like you think there are 2 bad solutions. You prefer one bad solution and Pex prefers the other bad solution. Can there be a good solution? Can there be a good solution that WotC can implement?

I'm not, I put plenty of thought into the topic when I was designing tables and discussing with other people. What took me the most time wasn't coming up with a reasonable difficulty scale or figuring out the DC of any particular situation, it was making sure the table was clean/concise and ensuring that modifiers were clearly codified and reasonably comprehensive.

I am saying that the current solution is quite good, and at minimum serviceable even to people who don't like it. If you're going to fix it, especially when it comes to providing more guidance for DMs, I would be starting with other areas.

[MinotaurWarrior]

I agree that we're talking in circles, as I've already pointed out that these mechanics are not a good comparison to skill check DCs. Better comparisons would be things like the NPCs you meet, the type and CR of enemies you face and the tactics those enemies implement. It's no coincidence that the static things you mentioned are player options, while the things I mentioned are DM-controlled and thus DM-dependent. To paraphrase you, I don't buy it that NPCs can be different in every campaign, the enemies can be different in every campaign, every encounter can be different, but different DMs using different walls is a horrible thing to contemplate.

I don't think it was a mistake to exclude all the DC guide tables in favor of one simple difficulty table. If a hypothetical 6e reintroduces those tables, I most likely won't DM that edition because I don't want to have to deal with all that cross-referencing to double-check my descriptions or players telling me that my DCs are objectively wrong. Beyond that, I'm happy to say we simply disagree on this matter and leave it be.


You might be underestimating the amount of thought that has been put into this topic.



It sounds like you think there are 2 bad solutions. You prefer one bad solution and Pex prefers the other bad solution. Can there be a good solution? Can there be a good solution that WotC can implement?

Example skill challenges with CR.

GOOEYCHEWIE, it's exactly the metaphor you keep using. The game would be awful if there were no example monsters, just a short section saying "AC 10 is easy, AC 20 is difficult", right? The MM is a tool I think literally every DM appreciates.

A good, well-rounded set of example skill challenges gives DMs tools to work with, players the stability of some inter-table standards to provide some consistent expectations, and in no way constrains DMs from making something up on the fly. Just like my table might have a bandit that's CR 9 and has multi attack + a bonus action hide, you can have a farm wall that's DC 25 to climb and has a brick fall on your head if you fail by 10 or more, even if the farm wall in the book is DC 5.

[Man_Over_Game]

It sounds like you think there are 2 bad solutions. You prefer one bad solution and Pex prefers the other bad solution. Can there be a good solution? Can there be a good solution that WotC can implement?


Example skill challenges with CR.

GOOEYCHEWIE, it's exactly the metaphor you keep using. The game would be awful if there were no example monsters, just a short section saying "AC 10 is easy, AC 20 is difficult", right? The MM is a tool I think literally every DM appreciates.

A good, well-rounded set of example skill challenges gives DMs tools to work with, players the stability of some inter-table standards to provide some consistent expectations, and in no way constrains DMs from making something up on the fly. Just like my table might have a bandit that's CR 9 and has multi attack + a bonus action hide, you can have a farm wall that's DC 25 to climb and has a brick fall on your head if you fail by 10 or more, even if the farm wall in the book is DC 5.

I can't guarantee it's perfect, but I think it'd be fair to have things be represented by how much they tax the party to resolve.

For example, tracking an imaginary currency like "Adventuring Points" that is totaled from the players' levels.

A DC 20 that deals 2d8 damage on a fail, against all party members, but can be solved with specific features or level 3 spells, is worth 1 point
A Normal encounter is worth 1 point.
A Hard combat encounter is worth 2 points.
Players recharge 2 points per Short Rest.

You could theoretically math out the cost of DCs and the loss/gain of those aspects, and compare them to the resources players would generally spend in order to succeed them (through skills, spells, features, etc). We already kinda do this, we just don't really have any reference as to how estimate the value/difficulty of those noncombat encounters accurately.

For example, how lethal/difficult does a wall or a trap have to be for it to equal one Easy combat encounter? Do I have to account for player level on those DCs (as the Easy-Hard combat difficulty scale does)?

Things are going to get more lethal when it comes to checks, as that's what happens when you're adventuring from level 1-20. Problem is right now, is that the game kinda expects you to bust open the same DC 10 doors and chests for every level, when the rest of the game scales past those concepts. By the time mildly heroic DC 15 checks are feasibly consistent enough to replace DC 10s (which takes about 8 levels, +2 from proficiency, +2 from stats), you're regularly dealing with DC 20-25 problems.

Personally, I think the biggest flaw is just that they tethered it to Bounded Accuracy, and didn't pay attention to how everything else tethered to it has means of pushing past it:
Even though Hideous Laughter and Hypnotic Pattern have roughly the same effect and saves that use Bounded Accuracy, they still have a dramatic jump in power to provide scaling from their levels.
Even though Barbarians still have to hit you through Bounded Accuracy, they still gain extra Rage damage, Extra Attacks, more HP, and other scaling features to add impact from level.

I don't think there is a perfect solution when using Bounded Accuracy for skills, as it basically boils down to:
Use something other than Bounded Accuracy for skills (by making something up)
Add some kind of amplifier on top of Bounded Accuracy (by making something up)


See the problem? Of course we can't agree on something, as we can't even decide whether we should fix the current foundation or just replace it, since both are equally good and problematic, and neither side has any evidence towards a solution other than "something is wrong".

[Pex]

I think I wasn't clear in my question. Let me try to reformulate.

You are thinking about making a NPC. What makes you decide that this particular NPC should have low/mid-range/high AC rather than something else?

You're getting analogous close to 4E thinking - the DC of a skill use depends on the level of the PC doing the task rather than the task itself.

The question is not a fair one, but I'm not meaning you personally doing the asking. NPCs and monsters do not follow the same rules in creation as PCs. Nothing stops a DM giving an orc non-magical platemail and shield, increasing its AC a lot. He can do so when he feels the party can handle it or to make it tougher or whatever. Likewise if there's a stone wall to climb the DM arbitrarily put it there as part of the encounter design. Nothing exists without the DM's permission. There is no rule, couldn't be, nor should there be to force a DM what to place where. That's all on the DM doing his job. It's when the PC interacts with things the DM places where the rules come in. That orc will always have AC 20 by any DM in any campaign. It's a different AC than the Monster Manual because it's an orc in platemail not hide. However, all platemail is AC 18 and a shield adds 2 to AC. Every game. Every campaign. Despite the fact the DM gave the orc platemail and shield by fiat the AC to hit it is fixed. Replace the orc with a stone wall. Why should all of a sudden a fixed number to climb it be a horrible thing to happen to the game? It's just as arbitrarily there. If it had a fixed climb DC but the DM wanted a harder climb then it wouldn't be a stone wall. It would be made from foo stuff or it is stone but finely chiseled to reduce handholds a PC could notice about it or some other detail if the DM actually cares about such minutiae. If it's enough for the encounter design a stone wall is just there, then it could have its fixed climb DC like a platemail has a fixed AC.

[Sorinth]

Please remember that Pex's example was that the Str 10 Warlock with no training should be expected to fail the moat + hill + tower. I mention this because it sounds like a useful reminder since your modification had no effect. So if the 3E DM sets the wall as DC 30, then 1d20+0 (0 ranks, 10ST) will fail, as expected. This is in contrast to the coin flip between the 5E DM that just said the Warlock auto passed and the 5E DM that decided trees are DC 20.

This made Pex feel that 3E let them roll a d20+mods against the game but 5E was flipping a coin to see which DM they would get.

I mean sure in my example I gave a reason why it's more difficult, but the DM could also lower the difficulty just as easily. You don't have to make a check because there are plenty of handholds that it's no harder then climbing a ladder.


That's hyperbole. Of course DMs can change whatever rule they want, but if they do so for everything why bother having any rules at all? When playing the game you expect to play by the rules. House rules are fine, but they should be minimal. When I'm playing D&D I expect to be playing D&D rules, not whatever new rule DM thinks of at the spur of the moment*. By the way, in 3E the DC to climb things does change based on circumstances. I, the DM, and the game are perfectly aware the DC changes based on the wall, but that's the point. The game provides the guidelines so I know what to expect. A typical dungeon wall is DC 20 to climb in 3E. In 5E that same dungeon wall is DC 20 in Ann's game, 15 in Bob's game, No in Carl's game, and Yes in Dinah's game. That's the problem.

It's irrelevant I can't track in 3E without a feat. I'm supposed to be able to track in 5E just because I want to, but the DM won't let me and it's partly 5E's fault. Still, if I did have the feat in 3E I could track because I chose to take the feat. Whether it should cost a feat is a different matter, but given it does and I pay it, I get it. My choice. My build. Not DM whim.

Except the DM isn't making houserules or changing anything because there is no rule that says climbing a wall is DC X. The consistency you think exists in 3e isn't actually there.

And the Tracking example perfectly illustrates my point because ironically it's one of the few places 5e actually does spell out a DC table. Page 244 of the DMG has exactly what you want. So it just goes to show that having that table of DCs is actually meaningless and that it's all DM fiat anyways.



Still no comment though on the DM never letting me use Passive Perception? Passive Insight? Passive anything? I'm supposed to be able to. That's also DM fiat, and 5E says that's perfectly ok. I can't be good at anything unless the DM gives permission no matter what I do when it comes to skills. It's Mother May I.

*That's not the same thing as a DM needing to adjudicate circumstances when something comes up he wasn't expecting or otherwise a situation doesn't have an obvious solution.

I didn't comment before because yes like everything else it's DM fiat. But the claim that you aren't good because you don't get to use your passive score is BS, you are still good at that aspect however the DM wants luck to play a significant factor in gameplay because he thinks luck is fun.

At the end of the day it's like everything else in D&D, the DM decides what type of game he wants to run, and the players decide if they want to play in that type of game. Some players like having rolls for everything because it means they always have a chance of success, others don't like luck having such a big impact. There's no right or wrong here, it's simply a case of the style of game you want to play. Like others have said it's actually no different then the DM wanting to play a gritty survival campaign, or a game where strong tactics are needed to survive every combat, etc... It's simply the type of game the DM wants to run and should be discussed at session 0.

[Sorinth]

Speaking as a DM, it’s not when I want to set an outrageously high or ridiculously low DC that I have issue with the current lack-of-system. It’s when I don’t know how hard something is, should be, or is meant to be in the milleaux of D&D.

I am pretty sure that, despite my own experience, climbing a stone wall in D&D is not meant to be “nigh impossible,” but I have no idea if it should be “trivial,” “hard,” or anything in between.

Give me benchmarks, and I can extrapolate whether something is easier or harder than them. But leave me no guidance, and the DCs will likely reflect nothing more than a weak nerd’s personal experiences. So barbarians should have no trouble with basic calculus, right? ;P

First I'll just mention that this is a problem no matter what because even with a table of DCs there will always be cases that aren't covered and you just don't know.

But you bring up an important point here. You as DM aren't going to be an expert in everything and it can be quite hard to come up with a realistic DC for things you know little about. And as I said before I think one of the biggest problems with the DMG is that it doesn't provide good guidance. But here's the important thing, you don't actually need or want a realistic DC. What you actually want is a DC that is fun for a game and that's the guidance you actually need and should follow when setting DCs.

[NorthernPhoenix]

First I'll just mention that this is a problem no matter what because even with a table of DCs there will always be cases that aren't covered and you just don't know.

But you bring up an important point here. You as DM aren't going to be an expert in everything and it can be quite hard to come up with a realistic DC for things you know little about. And as I said before I think one of the biggest problems with the DMG is that it doesn't provide good guidance. But here's the important thing, you don't actually need or want a realistic DC. What you actually want is a DC that is fun for a game and that's the guidance you actually need and should follow when setting DCs.

That's basically where i came from. I don't know what's "realistic". That's hard, and so is setting custom DCs based on that! But, i do know what classes should be good and bad at what things. And together with the 0-30 table, 5e's skill system just clicked for me.

[Sorinth]

That's exactly the problem. Language is inherently lossy, so 3E's approach of "unless stated otherwise from the DM, dungeon walls are DC 20 to climb" conveys much, much more information than 5E's "ask your DM for a ruling".

Because this falls into the expectations issue. If you expect your character to be good at something (and bad at something else), it creates all kinds of cognitive dissonance when the dice tell you your Wizard couldn't translate those arcane runes, but the Barbarian could.

And that dissonance, I think, is why some people are dissatisfied with 5E's skill system.

But it also creates a ton more rules lawyer-ing and the potential for hurt feelings whenever the DM decides that this dungeon wall isn't the generic dungeon wall.

[Edea]

This reminds me a bit of skill tricks from 3.5e. I really liked those, wish there'd been a lot more of them (though of course in 3.5's case it wasn't exactly like casters had restricted access to them).

[Telok]

Are we, though? I just explained how my experience very emphatically does not match what you are saying. My less experienced DMs have never had these problems. And those DMs were far from perfect.

Yes, and the plural of anecdote is not data because we can't quantify anything from them. That does not make your or my anecdotal infromation false. If 25% of 5e DMs are terrible you're in a 13% group of 7 in a row good ones and I'm in a 1.5% group of three in a row bad ones. But we can't say that because we don't have data, for all we know those % could be swapped. Without actual, large, rigorous studies we have only our personal experiences and anecdotes. This does not invalidate your experience, mine, Pex's, Old Tree's, anyone's experience. It simply means that we can't quantify numbers, rates, or ratios of player/DM experiences.

Not being able to put numbers to the ratios of good/bad/noob/pro DMs does not mean there aren't problems. You just haven't run across them. I'll spoiler my long version experience of a DM who rage quit because of the fallout from the 5e skill system.

Call the DM "X" for short because I'm on my phone here. The first game X ran was Starfinder, lasted about 3 months. The system math is tight and the adventures are more or less acceptable quality. The only real problems X had were when we didn't blindly follow the adventure. Things like renting a helicopter instead of walking through ten miles of poisoned, radioactive, hell-scape. Then X's inexperience showed in having to guess DCs, ACs, damage amounts, etc. They were always way high, impossible DCs, stuff we had to roll natural 20s to hit, two-shotting PCs level of damage. Generally we stuck to the rails and it was ok.

Then X moved to 5e because it was supposed to be simpler and easier. X read the books, we took up the pregen characters, started LMoP, and got TPKed in the fifth combat. Ok, we retried a couple weeks later with OotA and new characters. X had reread the books and claimed to have figured out the cr system. The game lasted 3 sessions before X rage quit. We'd ended up with an all caster party, 2 bards, cleric, warlock, wizard. We all had stuff to avoid or buff the checks. We still failed most of our checks just by rolling low, but we tried to skip as many as possible with spells. Unfortunately OotA doesn't have the nice railroads that Pazio adventures have, so we couldn't stick to a path with prewritten DCs and stuff.

See, X isn't particularly charismatic in real life, has a bad back, a bit overweight, a couple other things. So by X's experience all climbing is difficult and extremely dangerous so it warrants rolling, DC 15+ if the book didn't have one, because it's the average DC in the books. Swimming was the same, apparently X was a terrible swimmer so therefore it's really hard for anyone to swim. Just getting non-hostile NPCs to give us plot information was DC 10 (15 for "racial animosity" like elf-dwarf) because X has a hard time convincing people, worse for non-plot stuff and of course impossible for anything hostile.

In general if there wasn't a DC for something in the book it was DC 15 because that was average in the DMG. Of course anything that sounded 'above average' was 20 or 25. We ended up doing stuff like cutting bridges, running away, and trying to set everything on fire. Simply because everything we tried had a 50/50 fail rate if there wasn't an example or a DC in the books. X's judgement is that plysical stuff and talking to people is really hard, but since PCs are heroic they only have to roll against the average DC from the books, 15.

Needless to say, X doesn't have any feel for probability and statistics. X relied on the advice from the books, which was read as "the DM makes up a number based on whatever they know".

You'll want to say something about not calling for rolls so often. But the book says to roll when there's consequences for failure and/or the task is really hard. Well X"s life experience was that adventuring type stuff is difficult and hurts a lot. Climbing is hard and all falls result in hospital visits, roll to climb. Swiming is hard and always risks drowning, roll to swim. Jumping always risks falling like climbing, so going beyond the base distance was terribly risky. People don't want to talk to you, roll to not piss them off.

X was a worse DM than normal. But all the inexperienced DMs I've interacted with have had similar issues. If there isn't a guideline in the books they guess, and they start with the average DC in the books. Average, the one in the middle of the range, 15. Remember, X ran an ok StarFinder game for a few months. It had guidelines to follow.

[Snails]

But it also creates a ton more rules lawyer-ing and the potential for hurt feelings whenever the DM decides that this dungeon wall isn't the generic dungeon wall.

Quite the opposite. Eschewing any kind of relationship between standard descriptions and the DC makes the topic always in contention, and sows confusion. That is an inauspicious tactic for avoiding arguments.

In 3e, there is a range of choices for less than perfectly smooth walls from DC 10 to DC 25. From the description, it should be readily apparent that this wall is DC 20 or 25 and that over there is DC 15 or 20. The player can accurately set expectations from simple in character questions, such as "Is this like that orc stone work we saw yesterday or better quality?"

A wall is just a wall and the DC is 10 or 15 or 20 or 25 regardless of the description, you really think that is going to avoid grouchy players? No way.

[MinotaurWarrior]

snip

Personally, I think the biggest flaw is just that they tethered it to Bounded Accuracy, and didn't pay attention to how everything else tethered to it has means of pushing past it:
Even though Hideous Laughter and Hypnotic Pattern have roughly the same effect and saves that use Bounded Accuracy, they still have a dramatic jump in power to provide scaling from their levels.
Even though Barbarians still have to hit you through Bounded Accuracy, they still gain extra Rage damage, Extra Attacks, more HP, and other scaling features to add impact from level.

I don't think there is a perfect solution when using Bounded Accuracy for skills, as it basically boils down to:
Use something other than Bounded Accuracy for skills (by making something up)
Add some kind of amplifier on top of Bounded Accuracy (by making something up)


See the problem? Of course we can't agree on something, as we can't even decide whether we should fix the current foundation or just replace it, since both are equally good and problematic, and neither side has any evidence towards a solution other than "something is wrong".

All of these "problems" would apply to NPC adversaries too if we didn't have a MM.

The great thing about bounded accuracy for monster interactions is that a level 20 PC lives in the same world as a CR 1/2 orc. I can add an orc to an encounter appropriate for that PC, and the orc will interact with it. He will have a chance to do damage, avoid attacks, and make saves. He still feels like the same orc you fought at level 1. But now you easily destroy him, and feel more powerful.

Same thing with the farmer's wall. An appropriate CR 1/4 wall could be a recurring challenge for adventurers from 1 to 20 as they keep having to defend a particular homesteader. At level 1, it meaningfully slowed them down. At level 20, it's a trivial challenge, but still something they have to interact with.

[NorthernPhoenix]

Quite the opposite. Eschewing any kind of relationship between standard descriptions and the DC makes the topic always in contention, and sows confusion. That is an inauspicious tactic for avoiding arguments.

In 3e, there is a range of choices for less than perfectly smooth walls from DC 10 to DC 25. From the description, it should be readily apparent that this wall is DC 20 or 25 and that over there is DC 15 or 20. The player can accurately set expectations from simple in character questions, such as "Is this like that orc stone work we saw yesterday or better quality?"

A wall is just a wall and the DC is 10 or 15 or 20 or 25 regardless of the description, you really think that is going to avoid grouchy players? No way.

But you set the DC first then describe it anyway. This just creates incentive for players to "gatcha" the DM for not describing things "correctly" according to them or one of the books.

[Sorinth]

Yes, and the plural of anecdote is not data because we can't quantify anything from them. That does not make your or my anecdotal infromation false. If 25% of 5e DMs are terrible you're in a 13% group of 7 in a row good ones and I'm in a 1.5% group of three in a row bad ones. But we can't say that because we don't have data, for all we know those % could be swapped. Without actual, large, rigorous studies we have only our personal experiences and anecdotes. This does not invalidate your experience, mine, Pex's, Old Tree's, anyone's experience. It simply means that we can't quantify numbers, rates, or ratios of player/DM experiences.

Not being able to put numbers to the ratios of good/bad/noob/pro DMs does not mean there aren't problems. You just haven't run across them. I'll spoiler my long version experience of a DM who rage quit because of the fallout from the 5e skill system.

Call the DM "X" for short because I'm on my phone here. The first game X ran was Starfinder, lasted about 3 months. The system math is tight and the adventures are more or less acceptable quality. The only real problems X had were when we didn't blindly follow the adventure. Things like renting a helicopter instead of walking through ten miles of poisoned, radioactive, hell-scape. Then X's inexperience showed in having to guess DCs, ACs, damage amounts, etc. They were always way high, impossible DCs, stuff we had to roll natural 20s to hit, two-shotting PCs level of damage. Generally we stuck to the rails and it was ok.

Then X moved to 5e because it was supposed to be simpler and easier. X read the books, we took up the pregen characters, started LMoP, and got TPKed in the fifth combat. Ok, we retried a couple weeks later with OotA and new characters. X had reread the books and claimed to have figured out the cr system. The game lasted 3 sessions before X rage quit. We'd ended up with an all caster party, 2 bards, cleric, warlock, wizard. We all had stuff to avoid or buff the checks. We still failed most of our checks just by rolling low, but we tried to skip as many as possible with spells. Unfortunately OotA doesn't have the nice railroads that Pazio adventures have, so we couldn't stick to a path with prewritten DCs and stuff.

See, X isn't particularly charismatic in real life, has a bad back, a bit overweight, a couple other things. So by X's experience all climbing is difficult and extremely dangerous so it warrants rolling, DC 15+ if the book didn't have one, because it's the average DC in the books. Swimming was the same, apparently X was a terrible swimmer so therefore it's really hard for anyone to swim. Just getting non-hostile NPCs to give us plot information was DC 10 (15 for "racial animosity" like elf-dwarf) because X has a hard time convincing people, worse for non-plot stuff and of course impossible for anything hostile.

In general if there wasn't a DC for something in the book it was DC 15 because that was average in the DMG. Of course anything that sounded 'above average' was 20 or 25. We ended up doing stuff like cutting bridges, running away, and trying to set everything on fire. Simply because everything we tried had a 50/50 fail rate if there wasn't an example or a DC in the books. X's judgement is that plysical stuff and talking to people is really hard, but since PCs are heroic they only have to roll against the average DC from the books, 15.

Needless to say, X doesn't have any feel for probability and statistics. X relied on the advice from the books, which was read as "the DM makes up a number based on whatever they know".

You'll want to say something about not calling for rolls so often. But the book says to roll when there's consequences for failure and/or the task is really hard. Well X"s life experience was that adventuring type stuff is difficult and hurts a lot. Climbing is hard and all falls result in hospital visits, roll to climb. Swiming is hard and always risks drowning, roll to swim. Jumping always risks falling like climbing, so going beyond the base distance was terribly risky. People don't want to talk to you, roll to not piss them off.

X was a worse DM than normal. But all the inexperienced DMs I've interacted with have had similar issues. If there isn't a guideline in the books they guess, and they start with the average DC in the books. Average, the one in the middle of the range, 15. Remember, X ran an ok StarFinder game for a few months. It had guidelines to follow.


I'm not familiar with the Starfinder game but your example seemed to highlight that it didn't matter what system was used the DM struggled when they had to improvise. So he's fine if the adventure is railroady and there's always a clear path to take and struggles if it's more of a sandbox where players can get creative.

So I fail to see how the 5e system is bad just because it lends itself to the sandbox styles of play.

[Sorinth]

Personally, I think the biggest flaw is just that they tethered it to Bounded Accuracy

I sometimes wonder if the answer to those who don't like bounded accuracy for skills is to have a feat that mimics the Rogues Reliable Talent but have it only impact one or two skills.

That way when someone complains about their 20th level PC who fails a check they feel they should've passed people can just point to the feat that they didn't take.

[Sorinth]

I choose it based on a plethora of example monsters that are of the appropriate CR and which have example ACs to work from.

I am not asking for nearly so many examples of ability check DCs. But if I had even a tiny fraction of the number of monsters there are in skill DCs to work from, that’d do the trick.

Well there was a thread not too long ago on these forums which went through every published book/module and listed all the skill checks that were called for and what their DC was. So there's always that.

[NorthernPhoenix]

I sometimes wonder if the answer to those who don't like bounded accuracy for skills is to have a feat that mimics the Rogues Reliable Talent but have it only impact one or two skills.

That way when someone complains about their 20th level PC who fails a check they feel they should've passed people can just point to the feat that they didn't take.

I don't think feats should be the first option to solve anything in this system. They're too limited and have too large an opportunity cost to be used as "fixes".

Personally, i think the skill system works fine within bounded accuracy until there's something 1 character should obviously be very good at and rarely ever fail comes up (Barbarian athletics, Bard performance, Ranger animal handling, Wizard Arcana, etc). In these cases, i find just setting the DC for the task to Easy/Medium because that task would be Easy/Medium for that character solves the problem without interjecting bounded-breaking bonuses that might not apply in certain circumstances (Opposed Athletics, some guy really hates performances, impossible animal, neverbefore seen knowledge) where the DC would still be exceptionally high (Very Hard+) or where a large static bonus would not be appropriate even for the archetypal attempted.

[Segev]

First I'll just mention that this is a problem no matter what because even with a table of DCs there will always be cases that aren't covered and you just don't know.

But you bring up an important point here. You as DM aren't going to be an expert in everything and it can be quite hard to come up with a realistic DC for things you know little about. And as I said before I think one of the biggest problems with the DMG is that it doesn't provide good guidance. But here's the important thing, you don't actually need or want a realistic DC. What you actually want is a DC that is fun for a game and that's the guidance you actually need and should follow when setting DCs.
Granted, but I do want verisimilitude, and do not want to base DCs strictly on narrative convenience. If it did, I’d never call for skills and characters would succeed or fail depending on how well that served the narrative, no matter what they are doing.

I could do this with combat, too.

Yes, there are always things not in the examples. But it’s a lot easier to say “a slime covered wall is harder to climb than a dry stone wall” than it is to determine if climbing a dry stone wall is trivial, easy, hard, or nigh impossible.

Having some benchmarks for what “moderately hard” means in terms of each skill would go a long way. Comparisons can then be made, whereas right now it’s just spitballing. I hate it because I simultaneously feel like I’m making it too easy and being unfairly hard on my players with every arbitrary, pulled-out-of-my-rear DC I have to make up.


Well there was a thread not too long ago on these forums which went through every published book/module and listed all the skill checks that were called for and what their DC was. So there's always that.
That is helpful. Would be nice if it were in one place. Perhaps some sort of guide. For DMs.

[AdAstra]

Yes, and the plural of anecdote is not data because we can't quantify anything from them. That does not make your or my anecdotal infromation false. If 25% of 5e DMs are terrible you're in a 13% group of 7 in a row good ones and I'm in a 1.5% group of three in a row bad ones. But we can't say that because we don't have data, for all we know those % could be swapped. Without actual, large, rigorous studies we have only our personal experiences and anecdotes. This does not invalidate your experience, mine, Pex's, Old Tree's, anyone's experience. It simply means that we can't quantify numbers, rates, or ratios of player/DM experiences.

Not being able to put numbers to the ratios of good/bad/noob/pro DMs does not mean there aren't problems. You just haven't run across them. I'll spoiler my long version experience of a DM who rage quit because of the fallout from the 5e skill system.

Call the DM "X" for short because I'm on my phone here. The first game X ran was Starfinder, lasted about 3 months. The system math is tight and the adventures are more or less acceptable quality. The only real problems X had were when we didn't blindly follow the adventure. Things like renting a helicopter instead of walking through ten miles of poisoned, radioactive, hell-scape. Then X's inexperience showed in having to guess DCs, ACs, damage amounts, etc. They were always way high, impossible DCs, stuff we had to roll natural 20s to hit, two-shotting PCs level of damage. Generally we stuck to the rails and it was ok.

Then X moved to 5e because it was supposed to be simpler and easier. X read the books, we took up the pregen characters, started LMoP, and got TPKed in the fifth combat. Ok, we retried a couple weeks later with OotA and new characters. X had reread the books and claimed to have figured out the cr system. The game lasted 3 sessions before X rage quit. We'd ended up with an all caster party, 2 bards, cleric, warlock, wizard. We all had stuff to avoid or buff the checks. We still failed most of our checks just by rolling low, but we tried to skip as many as possible with spells. Unfortunately OotA doesn't have the nice railroads that Pazio adventures have, so we couldn't stick to a path with prewritten DCs and stuff.

See, X isn't particularly charismatic in real life, has a bad back, a bit overweight, a couple other things. So by X's experience all climbing is difficult and extremely dangerous so it warrants rolling, DC 15+ if the book didn't have one, because it's the average DC in the books. Swimming was the same, apparently X was a terrible swimmer so therefore it's really hard for anyone to swim. Just getting non-hostile NPCs to give us plot information was DC 10 (15 for "racial animosity" like elf-dwarf) because X has a hard time convincing people, worse for non-plot stuff and of course impossible for anything hostile.

In general if there wasn't a DC for something in the book it was DC 15 because that was average in the DMG. Of course anything that sounded 'above average' was 20 or 25. We ended up doing stuff like cutting bridges, running away, and trying to set everything on fire. Simply because everything we tried had a 50/50 fail rate if there wasn't an example or a DC in the books. X's judgement is that plysical stuff and talking to people is really hard, but since PCs are heroic they only have to roll against the average DC from the books, 15.

Needless to say, X doesn't have any feel for probability and statistics. X relied on the advice from the books, which was read as "the DM makes up a number based on whatever they know".

You'll want to say something about not calling for rolls so often. But the book says to roll when there's consequences for failure and/or the task is really hard. Well X"s life experience was that adventuring type stuff is difficult and hurts a lot. Climbing is hard and all falls result in hospital visits, roll to climb. Swiming is hard and always risks drowning, roll to swim. Jumping always risks falling like climbing, so going beyond the base distance was terribly risky. People don't want to talk to you, roll to not piss them off.

X was a worse DM than normal. But all the inexperienced DMs I've interacted with have had similar issues. If there isn't a guideline in the books they guess, and they start with the average DC in the books. Average, the one in the middle of the range, 15. Remember, X ran an ok StarFinder game for a few months. It had guidelines to follow.


Yes, but you claimed that everyone agreed on the subject. I do not agree, at least in regard to the idea that 5e's support for DMs is meaningfully inadequate, and I have experience that backs up my opinion. Other people in this thread do not agree. When that past thread about example DCs was live, tons of people didn't agree.

So, your DM is bad at improvising in general. That doesn't prove that 5e is bad, that, at best, shows that 5e requires a lot of improvising.

Also, what's so bad about most checks being DC 15? Call of Cthulhu and other percentile skill-based games pretty much work exactly like this. Unless there's some particular reason why a task is especially hard (and you're expressly told to only use Hard checks sparingly), almost all rolls for a given skill will be just as likely to succeed. You can get penalty and bonus die, but that's just a marginally more complicated version of Advantage and Disadvantage, and are supposed to be situational bonuses/penalties. A character's "DC" for a given skill, the number they need to roll under, is usually the same.

[Dienekes]

I sometimes wonder if the answer to those who don't like bounded accuracy for skills is to have a feat that mimics the Rogues Reliable Talent but have it only impact one or two skills.

That way when someone complains about their 20th level PC who fails a check they feel they should've passed people can just point to the feat that they didn't take.

I suggested basically this a few pages back. Just tied to classes instead of a feat. But maybe also have a feat, why not? But I think it would be very reasonable to have classes pick skills they specialize in above being proficient to provide a minimum roll. Hell, I think that works better than Expertise most of the time. A Barbarian getting Athletics, Perception, and Intimidate minimum roll of 10 suddenly has a decent chunk of more expected options available to them. And a Wizard who can already do guaranteed things with spell slots can get it in Arcana.

[Sorinth]

I don't think feats should be the first option to solve anything in this system. They're too limited and have too large an opportunity cost to be used as "fixes".

Personally, i think the skill system works fine within bounded accuracy until there's something 1 character should obviously be very good at and rarely ever fail comes up (Barbarian athletics, Bard performance, Ranger animal handling, Wizard Arcana, etc). In these cases, i find just setting the DC for the task to Easy/Medium because that task would be Easy/Medium for that character solves the problem without interjecting bounded-breaking bonuses that might not apply in certain circumstances (Opposed Athletics, some guy really hates performances, impossible animal, neverbefore seen knowledge) where the DC would still be exceptionally high (Very Hard+) or where a large static bonus would not be appropriate even for the archetypal attempted.

Having a variable DC comes to the same thing as giving circumstantial bonuses/penalties which is already part of how to resolve a skill check in 5e. I can see why some people might find altering the DC to be more intuitive then handing out bonuses so yeah go with what makes sense.

[Snails]

I sometimes wonder if the answer to those who don't like bounded accuracy for skills is to have a feat that mimics the Rogues Reliable Talent but have it only impact one or two skills.

I was thinking along similar lines, but (1) make it a little weaker, (2) encourage it to tie in to the character's background, (3) give it away from free (say, on every even numbered level, so they accumulate).

The effect would similar to Reliable, putting a floor on the roll. But I would prefer it be stated as an insight about the character, and then allow wiggle room based on how much it seems to apply.

Ideas:
"My character was a sailor, who volunteered to climb up the rigging in storms"
"She rode fearlessly in her youth, jumping over hedge when her parents could not see"
"Grandfather taught me the secrets of hunting game animals"

The advantage of Reliable Lite is it is largely perpendicular to the existing skill system. The main effect would be to accumulate a list of things where the PC can hit DC middling DCs all the time, which is a kind of heroic that does not break the flat math.

[Man_Over_Game]

I sometimes wonder if the answer to those who don't like bounded accuracy for skills is to have a feat that mimics the Rogues Reliable Talent but have it only impact one or two skills.

That way when someone complains about their 20th level PC who fails a check they feel they should've passed people can just point to the feat that they didn't take.

The numbers aren't the only problem.

Level 3 caster casts Hold Person. Level 20 caster casts Hold Person. They have varying difficulties, but the value of the save-or-suck is still roughly the same. This is kinda how skills work.

Problem is, Level 20 casters aren't casting Hold Person. They're casting things like Wall of Force.

Just because the numbers to save are the same doesn't inherently mean the value of the success-or-fail actually changes all that much.

We know how hard a DC 25 is, but how much is it worth? Yes, you can now regularly succeed on the DC 20's that your level 5 character used to have difficulties with, but do they still result in a level 5 reward?

Because from my experience, busting down a DC 10 or a DC 20 door generally results in the same thing: Getting on the other side of the door. Circumstances can be different so that the DC 20 version comes with something beneficial (like surprising the badguys on the other side), but I don't usually see that happen and I don't see any guidance in the DMG to imply it should.

[Sorinth]

I don't think feats should be the first option to solve anything in this system. They're too limited and have too large an opportunity cost to be used as "fixes".

Personally, i think the skill system works fine within bounded accuracy until there's something 1 character should obviously be very good at and rarely ever fail comes up (Barbarian athletics, Bard performance, Ranger animal handling, Wizard Arcana, etc). In these cases, i find just setting the DC for the task to Easy/Medium because that task would be Easy/Medium for that character solves the problem without interjecting bounded-breaking bonuses that might not apply in certain circumstances (Opposed Athletics, some guy really hates performances, impossible animal, neverbefore seen knowledge) where the DC would still be exceptionally high (Very Hard+) or where a large static bonus would not be appropriate even for the archetypal attempted.


I suggested basically this a few pages back. Just tied to classes instead of a feat. But maybe also have a feat, why not? But I think it would be very reasonable to have classes pick skills they specialize in above being proficient to provide a minimum roll. Hell, I think that works better than Expertise most of the time. A Barbarian getting Athletics, Perception, and Intimidate minimum roll of 10 suddenly has a decent chunk of more expected options available to them. And a Wizard who can already do guaranteed things with spell slots can get it in Arcana.

I suggest it as a feat because I have a feeling 99% of the players who complain about bounded accuracy would also never take the feat so it doesn't actually change anything except as an easy way to shutdown the complaints.

But I don't agree with the principle that high level characters should automatically succeed low level checks. It makes sense to me that a 20th level Evoker might still fail a DC 15 arcana check that has to do with Necromancy because he never really focused on Necromancy research or spells.

I think in these cases it's best done with the DM fiat, so if the check was about general magic principles or Evocation then no need to roll, auto-success. When it's about something the PC would be less familiar with then make the roll.

[AdAstra]

The numbers aren't the only problem.

Level 3 caster casts Hold Person. Level 20 caster casts Hold Person. They have varying difficulties, but the value of the save-or-suck is still roughly the same. This is kinda how skills work.

Problem is, Level 20 casters aren't casting Hold Person. They're casting things like Wall of Force.

Just because the numbers to save are the same doesn't inherently mean the value of the success-or-fail actually changes all that much.

We know how hard a DC 25 is, but how much is it worth? Yes, you can now regularly succeed on the DC 20's that your level 5 character used to have difficulties with, but do they still result in a level 5 reward?

That's not really something you're going to solve with an open ended skill system. By definition the results you can achieve and the actual effect they have are highly variable. In combat you can do more to codify things, but outside of it? Just because something is easy doesn't mean it has little effect, and just because something is hard doesn't mean you should automatically get a better benefit.

For example, If I wanted to lift a boulder over my head and throw it up in the air so that it lands on me, that's probably a pretty difficult task, but even if I succeed, I'm just going to get hurt more than if I had failed. On the other hand, lighting a fire in the enemy camp to cause chaos might not even require a roll, but could have enormous effect.

As for getting like, more impressive output from the same DC, it's one of those things where 5e doesn't go one way or the other. A DM could allow a level 20 fighter to perform a more difficult task than a level 5 fighter for the same DC, or they might decide that the same task takes the same DC no matter the character. We've seen some of that in this very thread. Personally, I'm happy that it's not forced to be one way.

[Telok]

So, your DM is bad at improvising in general. That doesn't prove that 5e is bad, that, at best, shows that 5e requires a lot of improvising.

Also, what's so bad about most checks being DC 15? Call of Cthulhu and other percentile skill-based games pretty much work exactly like this.

With the other game the DM can learn to be better. With 5e the DM quit because the system didn't offer anything they could use.

CoC has easy and hard checks, double and half your skill. So someone at 50% auto passes an easy check and someone at 100% is seriously challenged by a hard check. This is of course not including the option to directly modify the skill with +/- 5, 10, 37, whatever. In addition the skill is the precent chance of success, there's no need to do any calculations and your success/fail rates aren't hidden behind things like advantage/disadvantage or "is that perection or insight?" questions.

So, seriously, if your only position is that the 5e skills/stat check system is perfect that's fine. Its great that it works so well for you. You can just ignore this whole thread because it doesn't apply to you. For the rest of us the skills/stat check system regularly comes around with a pipe and kneecaps our fun.

Now, something more productive than arguing. The CoC thing gave me a thought: You could divide tasks into basic, advanced, and expert categories. Double, nothing, halve your bonuses. In addition to adv/dis. It allows for a more granularity than the DCs and proficient/not. I think you could even restrict your DC range even more, 10-15-20 and basic-advanced-expert could be the only decisions the DM needs to make. Of course you should still have some examples of typical tasks for gritty, heroic, superheroic campaigns. Maybe there could be more consistency that DC 11 for a 5' rough stone ledge and DC 10 for a magic carved 100' defensive pit.

[Dienekes]

I suggest it as a feat because I have a feeling 99% of the players who complain about bounded accuracy would also never take the feat so it doesn't actually change anything except as an easy way to shutdown the complaints.


Hmm. That seems disingenuous. Also a bit unfair. I personally would very much like to play a warrior who auto-succeeds finicky checks for Athletics, and if it fits my character things like History and Intimidation. And would take a feat for it if I could. In theory.

However, anyone could design a Feat with that ability that is just otherwise so poorly designed that I can’t rationalize taking it over things that are more build important until later level. Anyone can take a good thing and make it crap if they try hard enough. Making a weak feat then jumping out and going “Hah, gotcha. You didn’t give up one of your precious limited resources that the math of the system already says you pretty much have to spend on your primary attribute twice and likely at least a secondary at least once. And probably at least one weapon style feat. And then probably something to make certain you don’t get mind controlled. Hah! You must not actually want this thing you claim you want.”

Man. Imagine if spells were designed that way.

As to the Evoker problem. There we’re running into the issue of the system not being granular enough for you. But as it is. That Evoker can fail the easy checks on evocation just as easily as necromancy. Since there’s nothing in the DMG I read to say make the DCs variable based on who’s trying it.

Personally, I think that’s pretty inelegant design. There is already a number on your character sheet that’s supposed to represent how good you are at a skill. You add a d20 to it and that’s the result. I’m just picturing a table a table where the party is stealthing. The DM asks for rolls. The Rogue goes first rolls lowish. But gets a 15 total. The DM says he just barely makes it. The uncoordinated sorcerer rolls next. He casts the die. And lo and behold! 16 he makes it.

Only amidst the high fives the GM has to stop. No. Sorry. Your higher roll didn’t make it. You see the DC was only 15 for the Rogue. For you it’s 20.

[NorthernPhoenix]

I suggest it as a feat because I have a feeling 99% of the players who complain about bounded accuracy would also never take the feat so it doesn't actually change anything except as an easy way to shutdown the complaints.

But I don't agree with the principle that high level characters should automatically succeed low level checks. It makes sense to me that a 20th level Evoker might still fail a DC 15 arcana check that has to do with Necromancy because he never really focused on Necromancy research or spells.

I think in these cases it's best done with the DM fiat, so if the check was about general magic principles or Evocation then no need to roll, auto-success. When it's about something the PC would be less familiar with then make the roll.

I agree, which is why i think omni-applicable bonuses are not quite right. But to a level 20 Evoker, Evocation related Arcana rolls are around Easy, so the DC is low (10, 5 or nothing). A Necromancy related roll might be 15 or 20 (or more) depending the circumstance. To a Druid trained in Arcana, they're all the same.

[Man_Over_Game]

That's not really something you're going to solve with an open ended skill system. By definition the results you can achieve and the actual effect they have are highly variable. In combat you can do more to codify things, but outside of it? Just because something is easy doesn't mean it has little effect, and just because something is hard doesn't mean you should automatically get a better benefit.

For example, If I wanted to lift a boulder over my head and throw it up in the air so that it lands on me, that's probably a pretty difficult task, but even if I succeed, I'm just going to get hurt more than if I had failed. On the other hand, lighting a fire in the enemy camp to cause chaos might not even require a roll, but could have enormous effect.

As for getting like, more impressive effects from the same DC, it's one of those things where 5e doesn't go one way or the other. A DM could allow a level 20 fighter to perform a more difficult task than a level 5 fighter for the same DC, or they might decide that the same task takes the same DC no matter the character. We've seen some of that in this very thread. Personally, I'm happy that it's not forced to be one way.

But it's going to be assumed for most DMs that DCs are going to naturally scale towards the players' levels. Not even done as a "They're stronger, so it has to be harder" kind of mentality, but just because you're fighting more competent badguys, dealing with more dangerous politicians, and more mysterious magic. The stakes are raising, so things are getting more difficult.

Consider a Save roll someone makes against a high level's Banishment vs. Tasha's Hideous Laughter. Same DC, yet the successful save against Banishment results in more value (as the owner lost a more valuable resource and you prevented a bigger future problem), and the Banishment is a lot more likely.

I think your methodology makes sense from a realism standpoint (that is, not all tough badguys have tough doors, and a savvy level 1 shopkeeper probably has a vault for a shop, not all politicians are all that smart), I just suspect most DMs have skill check DCs scale the same way everything else does for the campaign (in regards to attacks and saves), and that's the problem.

In the end, though, that's basically the same issue of Bounded Accuracy, just from another perspective. Bounded Accuracy is designed for when "Level 1" does something against "Level 10", so both of their investments/stats/actions carry weight. But if we aren't supposed to be considering environmental skill checks as a "Level 10" problem, then what's the point of Bounded Accuracy for when it comes to uncontested skills?



Hmm... It does make me consider something, though. Maybe the answer is just to have pretty much any uncontested, reasonable skill check to be an automatic success. I know that everyone says that you're supposed to just not roll if failure isn't interesting, but maybe it needs a more aggressive approach:
Only ever roll for skill checks when something is trying to make you fail.

If Bounded Accuracy was designed for the maths involved when comparing one creature's stats to another, then perhaps it should only ever be used for that purpose.

[NorthernPhoenix]

But it's going to be assumed for most DMs that DCs are going to naturally scale towards the players' levels. Not even done as a "They're stronger, so it has to be harder" kind of mentality, but just because you're fighting more competent badguys, dealing with more dangerous politicians, and more mysterious magic. The stakes are raising, so things are getting more difficult.

Consider a Save roll someone makes against a high level's Banishment vs. Tasha's Hideous Laughter. Same DC, yet the successful save against Banishment results in more value (as the owner lost a more valuable resource and you prevented a bigger future problem), and the Banishment is a lot more likely.

I think your methodology makes sense from a realism standpoint (that is, not all tough badguys have tough doors, and a savvy level 1 shopkeeper probably has a vault for a shop, not all politicians are all that smart), I just suspect most DMs have skill check DCs scale the same way everything else does for the campaign (in regards to attacks and saves), and that's the problem.

In the end, though, that's basically the same issue of Bounded Accuracy, just from another perspective. If the DC's were supposed to be based around common sense and realism, and a DC 10 in a level 15 campaign is a reasonable obstacle to come across, why bother tying it to the system that makes peasants have as much impact as heroes?

Do peasants get to roll at all though? That's up to the DM.

[Man_Over_Game]

Do peasants get to roll at all though? That's up to the DM.

Metaphorical peasants. Like level 1 characters compared to a level 20.

[NorthernPhoenix]

Metaphorical peasants. Like level 1 characters compared to a level 20.

Well, the whole idea behind bounded accuracy is that it should be more Warrior to Hero than Peasant to God. The difference was, at least in intent, never supposed to be a enormous gap.

[Man_Over_Game]

Well, the whole idea behind bounded accuracy is that it should be more Warrior to Hero than Peasant to God. The difference was, at least in intent, never supposed to be a enormous gap.

But the reality is:

Level 1 Fighter:

Chance of hitting 18 AC: 30%
Damage on a hit: 10
# of attacks in turn 1: 1
Total calculated damage: 3.0
Estimated HP: 12


Level 20 Samurai:

Chance of hitting 18 AC: 64%
Damage on a hit: 12
# of attacks in turn 1: 8
Total calculated damage: 61.44
Estimated HP: 195


We are not just comparing the 30% chance of success to a 64% chance. We are comparing the fact that it takes ~30 or so level 1 fighters to take on a single level 20.

While skills are comparing one character being twice as good as another at doing something, the rest of the game is comparing them as 3 vs 100. A 33x difference.

The reason this happens in 5e is because your To-Hit isn't the only thing that's growing:

How much HP you have synergizes with other things, because it means you can survive to deal more damage.
How many attacks you make synergizes with other things, as it increases the amount of damage you do as a multiplier per turn.
How much damage you do with each attack synergizes with other things, as it increases the base damage you do.



Even a simple +1 ASI doesn't just increase your chance to hit from being a 30% to a 35% chance (which in itself actually increases your overall damage by 15% just based on To-Hit alone), but it also increases your base damage per attack from 10 to 11 (which is another 10% increase).
So while an ASI would improve your overall attack damage by roughly [1.15*1.1=]26%, the skill equivalent is only being improved by 15%.

When you become an overall 33 times stronger than your original self, when another part of you only got twice as strong, that's a problem. It doesn't sound like much, but compare how strong and smart you are compared to a baby (100 times? 200 times?), and then limit that to being only 2x more than how you were born.

I deal 33 Peasants' worth of murder, but I can only deal 2 peasants' worth of sprinting?

[NorthernPhoenix]

But the reality is:

Level 1 Fighter:

Chance of hitting 18 AC: 30%
Damage on a hit: 10
# of attacks in turn 1: 1
Total calculated damage: 3.0
Estimated HP: 12


Level 20 Samurai:

Chance of hitting 18 AC: 64%
Damage on a hit: 12
# of attacks in turn 1: 8
Total calculated damage: 61.44
Estimated HP: 195


We are not just comparing the 30% chance of success to a 64% chance. We are comparing the fact that it takes ~30 or so level 1 fighters to take on a single level 20.

While skills are comparing one character being twice as good as another at doing something, the rest of the game is comparing them as 3 vs 100. A 33x difference.

When you become an overall 33 times stronger than your original self, when another part of you only got twice as strong, that's a problem. It doesn't sound like much, but compare how strong and smart you are compared to a baby, and then limit that to being only 2x more than how you were born.

Right, but enemy HP and damage scale at the same rate (roughly), while skill challenges scale upwards at much the same rate as skill bonuses do. There's no need for a 33x difference in skill power because the challenge isn't also 33x stronger, while the damage and hp challenges (roughly) are.

[Man_Over_Game]

Right, but enemy HP and damage scale at the same rate (roughly), while skill challenges scale upwards at much the same rate as skill bonuses do. There's no need for a 33x difference in skill power because the challenge isn't also 33x stronger, while the damage and hp challenges (roughly) are.

Based on what?

I'm not saying that they shouldn't, I just don't see anything in the books that imply that they do or should.

[NorthernPhoenix]

Based on what?

I'm not saying that they shouldn't, I just don't see anything in the books that imply that they do or should.

I mean, assuming skill checks rarely go above far 30. I've never seen anyone play 5e that way (with 40 or 50 checks for anything) but it's possible some people run it that way. In that case, sure you'd need higher skill powers too.

[Man_Over_Game]

I mean, assuming skill checks rarely go above far 30. I've never seen anyone play 5e that way (with 40 or 50 checks for anything) but it's possible some people run it that way. In that case, sure you'd need higher skill powers too.

Ah, I misunderstood what you meant. I think you make a valid point (that murderproblems go from 0-1000, while skill problems just go to 0-30), I think the big problem with that is the perspective.

A DC 15 wall is the rough "difficulty" equivalent of a Bear to a low level player. At level 20, you don't really need to worry about Bears anymore, and it'd be a joke if that was what your DM threw at you, yet that's what it feels like to come across a DC 15 that continues to challenge you.

At the start, everyone rolls numbers close to 10's. When you hit level 20, you're now dealing 80 someodd damage per turn, taking 50 back, retaliate with another 70, etc. For skills, though, you're rolling...15's now, maybe 20.

Trying to skew that mindset, that skills/checks/environmental problems scale on a different axis than spells/attacks do, despite the fact that they all use Bounded Accuracy, seems pretty damn hard.

[NorthernPhoenix]

Ah, I misunderstood what you meant. I think you make a valid point, I think the big problem with that is the perspective.

A DC 15 wall is the rough equivalent of a Bear. At level 20, you don't really need to worry about Bears anymore, and it'd be a joke if that was what your DM threw at you. Trying to skew that mindset, that skills/checks/environmental problems scale on a different axis than spells/attacks do, despite the fact that they all use Bounded Accuracy, seems pretty damn hard. Even grasping the concept of it myself is hard enough that it's making describing it difficult.

Everyone gets better at combat, while only invested people get better at any single type of skill, which creates a very different progression. The axis is that a level 20 combat foe (Dragon etc) is many times stronger than a bear, while the DC 30 Demonweb Pit Walls or Elemental Chaos Vault Walls are only twice as hard as a DC 15 wall so you theoretically don't need 20 times the skill power, just 2 or 3.

[Man_Over_Game]

Everyone gets better at combat, while only invested people get better at any single type of skill, which creates a very different progression. The axis is that a level 20 combat foe (Dragon etc) is many times stronger than a bear, while the DC 30 Demonweb Pit Walls or Elemental Chaos Vault Walls are only twice as hard as a DC 15 wall so you theoretically don't need 20 times the skill power, just 2 or 3.

That's not quite twice as hard, though.

A DC 30, with the smallest percent chance of success (5%) means you have at least a +10 to your rolls. That means you'd have an 80% chance of success on the DC 15. That's 16 times harder.

From the other direction, the smallest % chance of failing the DC 15 (95% success) means you'd have a +14 to your rolls. That means you'd have a 25% chance of success on the DC 30. That's about 4 times harder.

So it's roughly about x10 harder than the DC 15.


My point is, the difference between a DC 15 and a DC 30 doesn't feel like the epic difference between a Bear and a Dragon, or even as being 10x harder. Even in your own words, it was rounded to 2x as difficult.

Consider that the most recommended starter dungeon from official content is The Sunless Citadel. In the same dungeon, there is a DC 30 door that's solved through an Athletics Check. You can also unlock it with Thieves' Tools, Knock, or a key, but that doesn't change the fact that the best example of official material recommends using a DC 30 as a possible check for a level 1 character.

There is a faulty expectation there.

There are loads of people who have complaints about the To-Hit/AC calculations at higher level tables, yet the "Armor Check" value is probably one of the least important stats in the entire game when it comes to combat. You can screw up AC or Hit bonuses, because it won't define an encounter, and adjustments can be made with other things over time (like with reinforcements, or adding new attacks).

Skills don't have the luxury of having anything else to flex with, except...DM's imagination, I guess. Didn't someone mention that there was a single Charisma check in the Waterdeep campaign that completely redefines what path the rest of the campaign takes on what's basically a coin toss? Yeah, it's kinda like that, but for virtually every single skill check.

I never really thought about it before, but I think this is the reason I hate it when players ask for skill checks. Not because I don't want them to do anything, but it feels like so much friggin' work to get exactly what they asked for compared to exactly what the difficulty should be compared to what it is that they rolled, on top of environmental worldbuilding that gets in the way.

It's exhausting. Like having to come up with a perfectly balanced Difficult level micro combat that's determined with a single d20.

The only thing that allows for any wiggle room is that you're the DM, and screwing up on the DC value is something you can fudge without the players knowing, or it's something you can hopefully work something else in the scenario around.


Combining the two issues, that skill checks generally have to be balanced perfectly the first time, and that there is a natural and incorrect bias that the DC 25 is something that a level 4 character should plausibly encounter, creates this problem where DMing mistakes can both be big and fairly common.

[NorthernPhoenix]

That's not quite twice as hard, though.

A DC 30, with the smallest percent chance of success (5%) means you have at least a +10 to your rolls. That means you'd have an 80% chance of success on the DC 15. That's 16 times harder.

From the other direction, the smallest % chance of failing the DC 15 (95% success) means you'd have a +14 to your rolls. That means you'd have a 25% chance of success on the DC 30. That's about 4 times harder.

So it's roughly about x10 harder than the DC 15.


My point is, the difference between a DC 15 and a DC 30 doesn't feel like the epic difference between a Bear and a Dragon, or even as being 10x harder. Even in your own words, it was rounded to 2x as difficult.

Consider that the most recommended starter dungeon from official content is The Sunless Citadel. In the same dungeon, there is a DC 30 door that's solved through an Athletics Check. You can also unlock it with Thieves' Tools, Knock, or a key, but that doesn't change the fact that the best example of official material recommends using a DC 30 as a possible check for a level 1 character.

There is a faulty expectation there.

There are loads of people who have complaints about the To-Hit/AC calculations at higher level tables, yet the "Armor Check" value is probably one of the least important stats in the entire game when it comes to combat. You can screw up AC or Hit bonuses, because it won't define an encounter, and adjustments can be made with other things over time.

Skills don't have the luxury of having anything else to flex with, except...DM's imagination, I guess. Didn't someone mention that there was a single Charisma check in the Waterdeep campaign that completely redefines what path the rest of the campaign takes on what's basically a coin toss? Yeah, it's kinda like that, but for virtually every single skill check.

I never really thought about it before, but I think this is the reason I hate it when players ask for skill checks. Not because I don't want them to do anything, but it feels like so much friggin' work to get exactly what they asked for compared to exactly what the difficulty should be compared to what it is that they rolled, on top of environmental worldbuilding that gets in the way.

It's exhausting. Like having to come up with a perfectly balanced Difficult level micro combat that's determined with a single d20.

The only thing that allows for any wiggle room is that you're the DM, and screwing up on the DC value is something you can fudge without the players knowing, or it's something you can hopefully work something else in the scenario around.

I guess that's ultimately where the difference in opinion comes from. To me it doesn't feel like work at all. To me balancing combat is work, and it is because the default stat-blocks (example DCs for combat) aren't very good and frequently need to be changed. I do agree that some of the example DCs from Waterdeep and Sunless Citadel aren't very good either.

[Pex]

But you set the DC first then describe it anyway. This just creates incentive for players to "gatcha" the DM for not describing things "correctly" according to them or one of the books.

That's the 5E way. In the 3E way the DM decides there's a wall there and the DC to climb it is already determined. The DM doesn't have to think up DCs for every bit of minutiae detail. Of course a table won't have DCs for everything that could possibly exist. It doesn't have to. All it needs is benchmark examples of the most common things. Most of the time a DM doesn't care what a wall is made out of. It's just a wall. A table would then say a wall DC climb is X. Here are examples of the most common things that could change the DC - slippery, extra smooth, use grappling hooks and rope, wall is of special material not common typical. Use DC Y instead or in 3E "DM's best friend" of plus or minus 2. In 5E it could be a different DC or roll with advantage/disadvantage depending what the table advises.

That DC won't change just because PCs gain levels. If they're proficient they get better at it as they should. As a generic rule covering all skills tell the DM specifically players can use their Passive score when not in a rush or immediate danger such as combat which can allow for automatic success or if the player just wants to use it willingly accepting the results in case of an opposed roll. Also specifically say when the players have all the time in the world to do the thing they do the thing. 5E already does say that, but it could be emphasized better. Personal opinion, not 5E critique. If it helps, tell the DM in those cases presume the character rolled a 20, but this can only happen if a rolled 1 failing the task wouldn't have affected anything. Yes, I do mean bring back Take 10/20. 5E's version is not quite the same.

Change Rogue's Reliable Talent to be able to use his Passive Score even in dangerous situations like combat where you normally couldn't or maybe gain always have advantage on particular skills of choice.

[NorthernPhoenix]

That's the 5E way. In the 3E way the DM decides there's a wall there and the DC to climb it is already determined. The DM doesn't have to think up DCs for every bit of minutiae detail. Of course a table won't have DCs for everything that could possibly exist. It doesn't have to. All it needs is benchmark examples of the most common things. Most of the time a DM doesn't care what a wall is made out of. It's just a wall. A table would then say a wall DC climb is X. Here are examples of the most common things that could change the DC - slippery, extra smooth, use grappling hooks and rope, wall is of special material not common typical. Use DC Y instead or in 3E "DM's best friend" of plus or minus 2. In 5E it could be a different DC or roll with advantage/disadvantage depending what the table advises.

That DC won't change just because PCs gain levels. If they're proficient they get better at it as they should. As a generic rule covering all skills tell the DM specifically players can use their Passive score when not in a rush or immediate danger such as combat which can allow for automatic success or if the player just wants to use it willingly accepting the results in case of an opposed roll. Also specifically say when the players have all the time in the world to do the thing they do the thing. 5E already does say that, but it could be emphasized better. Personal opinion, not 5E critique. If it helps, tell the DM in those cases presume the character rolled a 20, but this can only happen if a rolled 1 failing the task wouldn't have affected anything. Yes, I do mean bring back Take 10/20. 5E's version is not quite the same.

Change Rogue's Reliable Talent to be able to use his Passive Score even in dangerous situations like combat where you normally couldn't or maybe gain always have advantage on particular skills of choice.

See, i don't see it the same way. In 3E, the DM decides there's a wall. If i want it to be very hard, i say it's whatever type of wall the book says is a very hard wall (super smooth, etc). It's like 5e but with extra steps.

I see the the take 10/20 the same way. It's 5Es auto success with extra steps.

[Pex]

I suggest it as a feat because I have a feeling 99% of the players who complain about bounded accuracy would also never take the feat so it doesn't actually change anything except as an easy way to shutdown the complaints.

But I don't agree with the principle that high level characters should automatically succeed low level checks. It makes sense to me that a 20th level Evoker might still fail a DC 15 arcana check that has to do with Necromancy because he never really focused on Necromancy research or spells.

I think in these cases it's best done with the DM fiat, so if the check was about general magic principles or Evocation then no need to roll, auto-success. When it's about something the PC would be less familiar with then make the roll.

That's the problem. Right there. Your game. You think a 20th level Evoker should have difficulty knowing about Necromancy. Another DM thinks differently. Therefore, me as player of an Evoker may only know things about Necromancy based on who is DM that day, not my choice.

[Sorinth]

Hmm. That seems disingenuous. Also a bit unfair. I personally would very much like to play a warrior who auto-succeeds finicky checks for Athletics, and if it fits my character things like History and Intimidation. And would take a feat for it if I could. In theory.

However, anyone could design a Feat with that ability that is just otherwise so poorly designed that I can’t rationalize taking it over things that are more build important until later level. Anyone can take a good thing and make it crap if they try hard enough. Making a weak feat then jumping out and going “Hah, gotcha. You didn’t give up one of your precious limited resources that the math of the system already says you pretty much have to spend on your primary attribute twice and likely at least a secondary at least once. And probably at least one weapon style feat. And then probably something to make certain you don’t get mind controlled. Hah! You must not actually want this thing you claim you want.”

Man. Imagine if spells were designed that way.

Well it's not that weak of a feat, it's replicates a signature feature of the Rogue class which is a high level feature to begin with. It's probably similar in to the Prodigy feat, it's not a weak feat, but most people will probably skip it. Also people not taking it early is actually a positive since the complaint is that their high level character failed something easy, which means they are high enough level to have gotten several ASIs already.

So long as we aren't talking about trap feats where it makes you think you can do something but is actually completely useless then I don't think there's a problem introducing a feat that is weak and not optimized but would help a character concept.

If I was DMing and a player wanted to be better/more consistent at some skills I would just remove the racial requirements of Prodigy and point them to that.


As to the Evoker problem. There we’re running into the issue of the system not being granular enough for you. But as it is. That Evoker can fail the easy checks on evocation just as easily as necromancy. Since there’s nothing in the DMG I read to say make the DCs variable based on who’s trying it.

Personally, I think that’s pretty inelegant design. There is already a number on your character sheet that’s supposed to represent how good you are at a skill. You add a d20 to it and that’s the result. I’m just picturing a table a table where the party is stealthing. The DM asks for rolls. The Rogue goes first rolls lowish. But gets a 15 total. The DM says he just barely makes it. The uncoordinated sorcerer rolls next. He casts the die. And lo and behold! 16 he makes it.

Only amidst the high fives the GM has to stop. No. Sorry. Your higher roll didn’t make it. You see the DC was only 15 for the Rogue. For you it’s 20.

It's Page 7 of the PHB, "Apply circumstantial bonuses and penalties".

The evoker could and probably should get a circumstantial bonus to his arcana check for things in his field of expertise, just like if in his backstory when he was an apprentice he encountered this exact type of magic before he should get some kind of bonus to recognize it now. There are a million potential reasons out there for giving circumstantial bonuses so it makes sense to leave it up to the DM.

Changing the DC is functionally equivalent to providing circumstantial bonuses/penalty. But for some people it's easier to think in terms of the DC then it is to think in what +5 means or giving advantage on a roll.

In your stealth example there would have to be a reason for the different DC. If the Sorceror's clothing is covered with bells that jingle whenever they move it makes sense that they would have some sort of penalty which again is functionally equivalent to simply having a higher DC.

[Sorinth]

That's the problem. Right there. Your game. You think a 20th level Evoker should have difficulty knowing about Necromancy. Another DM thinks differently. Therefore, me as player of an Evoker may only know things about Necromancy based on who is DM that day, not my choice.

My game is going to run different then someone else's game. That we agree on, but what's the problem?

I'm sure the answer is "lack of consistency" but I still don't get it because there is never going to be consistency when going from one D&D game to another (Regardless of edition). If I run a political intrigue game in s steam-punk world where there is little combat and it's mostly role play it won't be at all consistent with someone else running a survival themed game where you fight endless hordes of undead.

And for the record if you want to build an Evoker who knows about Necromancy you can. Put it in your backstory or make in game choices to reflect your study of Necromancy.

[OldTrees1]

But I don't agree with the principle that high level characters should automatically succeed low level checks. It makes sense to me that a 20th level Evoker might still fail a DC 15 arcana check that has to do with Necromancy because he never really focused on Necromancy research or spells.

I think in these cases it's best done with the DM fiat, so if the check was about general magic principles or Evocation then no need to roll, auto-success. When it's about something the PC would be less familiar with then make the roll.

May I suggest player roleplay instead?

Option 1:
The 20th level Archmage should pass the DC 15 Necromancy check
The 20th level Necromancer should pass a DC 20 Necromancy check
The 20th level Evoker declares they failed the DC 15 Necromancy check.

Option 2:
The 20th level Archmage fails the DC 15 Necromancy check, except the DM fixes it with fiat
The 20th level Necromancer fails the DC 15 Necromancy check, except the DM fixes it with fiat
The 20th level Evoker passes the DC 15 Necromancy check, except the DM fixes it with fiat

Option 1 works better for more cases than Option 2 does (but I will admit neither is strictly better). And it puts the characterization based nerfings in the hands of the player doing the characterization. That way the Necromancer that uses a refluffed Evoker subclass will nerf their Evocation knowledge rather than the DM having to guess which knowledge base to nerf.


My game is going to run different then someone else's game. That we agree on, but what's the problem?

I'm sure the answer is "lack of consistency" but I still don't get it because there is never going to be consistency when going from one D&D game to another (Regardless of edition). If I run a political intrigue game in s steam-punk world where there is little combat and it's mostly role play it won't be at all consistent with someone else running a survival themed game where you fight endless hordes of undead.

And for the record if you want to build an Evoker who knows about Necromancy you can. Put it in your backstory or make in game choices to reflect your study of Necromancy.

One problem is: Lack of player knowledge that would be highly useful for roleplaying.
Now it is true that Pex has been vocal about consistency as a valuable means of conveying this information, however I suspect this problem about under informed players is the root of the issue.

Example 1)
If I want to make a competent dungeon guide, what level do I need to be and how specialized do I need to be (ranges from x0 to x4 specialization) and what is the level range where this concept is going to be competent? I have no idea. It would be really handy if I could know that the DM would require a x3 but not a x4 specialization.

Example 2)
I made a x3 specialized dungeon guide. How competent am I? Should I expect to fumble all my efforts on normal traps? Should I expect to trivialize traps to the point that the DM just removes them all? Somewhere in the middle where I am reliable at identifying the nature of the trap but it takes party effort to disable the traps?

The player only knows about the world through the window the DM and the rules provide. If you don't provide this useful information, it can cause problems. There are multiple ways to provide this useful information. Requiring the players to pester you about every usage is an option, but a poor option for my group. I would prefer a standard that I could deviate from. 20 answers is easier than 100 questions.

[Pex]

My game is going to run different then someone else's game. That we agree on, but what's the problem?

I'm sure the answer is "lack of consistency" but I still don't get it because there is never going to be consistency when going from one D&D game to another (Regardless of edition). If I run a political intrigue game in s steam-punk world where there is little combat and it's mostly role play it won't be at all consistent with someone else running a survival themed game where you fight endless hordes of undead.

And for the record if you want to build an Evoker who knows about Necromancy you can. Put it in your backstory or make in game choices to reflect your study of Necromancy.

There is plenty of consistency between campaigns. All platemails are AC 18. All Bless spells cast at 1st level give +1d4 to attacks and saving throws for up to three creatures. All non-magical long swords used by one hand deal 1d8 damage. All class ability DC saving throws are 8 + relevant ability modifier + proficiency.

What more could I do to be an Evoker who knows about Necromancy? I choose to put proficiency in Arcana. The only reason I don't know about Necromancy is you doing it by fiat. It would have been nice and fine if an Arcana DC table said: Know about a spell in your specialty if you have one or the philosophical aspects there of: DC 5. Know about a spell in your class and not of your specialty if you have one or the philosophical aspects there of including your subclass: DC 10. Knowledge of philosophical aspects not of your specialty or out of your subclass: DC 15. It could be worded better. But Arcana doesn't, so it's all DM whim.

[GooeyChewie]

There is plenty of consistency between campaigns. All platemails are AC 18. All Bless spells cast at 1st level give +1d4 to attacks and saving throws for up to three creatures. All non-magical long swords used by one hand deal 1d8 damage. All class ability DC saving throws are 8 + relevant ability modifier + proficiency.
I did say I would leave the topic of skill checks alone, so I will only respond regarding consistency between campaigns.

Yes, all non-magical plate mails are AC 18. But this DM favors enemies making physical attacks (18 good!), while that DM favors enemies forcing saving throws (18... doesn't matter).

Yes, all Bless spells cast at 1st level give +1d4 to attacks and saving throws for up to three creatures. But this DM has the enemies engaging in hit-and-run tactics to minimize your attacks and not force saving throws (Bless didn't matter much), while that DM has the enemies standing in your face casting save-or-suck spells (Bless was awesome!).

Yes, all non-magical long swords used by one hand deal 1d8 damage. But this DM never gives out magical weapons (sticking with 1d8), while that DM gives them out Monty Haul style (lots of bonus damage!).

Yes, all class ability DC saving throws are 8 + relevant ability modifier + proficiency. But this DM makes sure to use enemies with high saves and/or legendary resistances (need higher DC!), while that DM makes sure to use enemies which suck as saving (can deal with lower DC).

Yes, all skill bonus are ability modifier + proficiency (if proficient). But this DM sets DCs high (more bonus needed!), while this DM sets DCs low (more bonus not as needed).


If your primary concern is consistency, then I recommend you look for DMs who run WOTC-published modules that have pre-set enemies (preferably detailing their preferred tactics), skill check DCs and loot, regardless of what edition you are playing. Well, TSR-published if you go back far enough.

[Pex]

I did say I would leave the topic of skill checks alone, so I will only respond regarding consistency between campaigns.

Yes, all non-magical plate mails are AC 18. But this DM favors enemies making physical attacks (18 good!), while that DM favors enemies forcing saving throws (18... doesn't matter).

Yes, all Bless spells cast at 1st level give +1d4 to attacks and saving throws for up to three creatures. But this DM has the enemies engaging in hit-and-run tactics to minimize your attacks and not force saving throws (Bless didn't matter much), while that DM has the enemies standing in your face casting save-or-suck spells (Bless was awesome!).

Yes, all non-magical long swords used by one hand deal 1d8 damage. But this DM never gives out magical weapons (sticking with 1d8), while that DM gives them out Monty Haul style (lots of bonus damage!).

Yes, all class ability DC saving throws are 8 + relevant ability modifier + proficiency. But this DM makes sure to use enemies with high saves and/or legendary resistances (need higher DC!), while that DM makes sure to use enemies which suck as saving (can deal with lower DC).

Yes, all skill bonus are ability modifier + proficiency (if proficient). But this DM sets DCs high (more bonus needed!), while this DM sets DCs low (more bonus not as needed).


If your primary concern is consistency, then I recommend you look for DMs who run WOTC-published modules that have pre-set enemies (preferably detailing their preferred tactics), skill check DCs and loot, regardless of what edition you are playing. Well, TSR-published if you go back far enough.

I get to choose to cast Bless or not if another spell would be better. I don't get to choose magic items, but I get to choose using a long sword or great sword or bow and know exactly how much damage I do. I get to choose when to use my class abilities. I know exactly how they work and figure out the tactics to use them against whatever the DM puts out there. I don't get to choose how good I am at many things that's not combat related. I can choose the bonus number I get to roll with, but it tells me nothing about what I can climb or know or perceive. I do get to know the difficulty to hit objects and how much damage I need to do to break one, but it's quasi-cheating since I need to read the DMG. It should have been in the PHB. I also get to know the difficulty of various uses of tools thus know if I can be casual about it using Passive or I need to make some extra effort and roll, but it requires a supplemental splat book. There are so many things that are consistent where the DM gets to plop widgets for the PCs to interact with, and the players know how well they can deal with it in all campaigns everywhere, but some things are denied having such knowledge and they shouldn't be, didn't have to be, and the game would not have been ruined if they were.

[Sorinth]

May I suggest player roleplay instead?

Option 1:
The 20th level Archmage should pass the DC 15 Necromancy check
The 20th level Necromancer should pass a DC 20 Necromancy check
The 20th level Evoker declares they failed the DC 15 Necromancy check.

Option 2:
The 20th level Archmage fails the DC 15 Necromancy check, except the DM fixes it with fiat
The 20th level Necromancer fails the DC 15 Necromancy check, except the DM fixes it with fiat
The 20th level Evoker passes the DC 15 Necromancy check, except the DM fixes it with fiat

Option 1 works better for more cases than Option 2 does (but I will admit neither is strictly better). And it puts the characterization based nerfings in the hands of the player doing the characterization. That way the Necromancer that uses a refluffed Evoker subclass will nerf their Evocation knowledge rather than the DM having to guess which knowledge base to nerf.

It wouldn't work because a lot of the info is hidden. For example, if the PC found some strange magical device and is makiing the Arcana check to determine what it's used for then they don't know that it's Necromantic in nature and so can't decide whether to self-penalize.

And since both penalties and bonuses applies, if players are allowed to choose that a bonus applies it can lead to problems/abuse.




One problem is: Lack of player knowledge that would be highly useful for roleplaying.
Now it is true that Pex has been vocal about consistency as a valuable means of conveying this information, however I suspect this problem about under informed players is the root of the issue.

Example 1)
If I want to make a competent dungeon guide, what level do I need to be and how specialized do I need to be (ranges from x0 to x4 specialization) and what is the level range where this concept is going to be competent? I have no idea. It would be really handy if I could know that the DM would require a x3 but not a x4 specialization.

Example 2)
I made a x3 specialized dungeon guide. How competent am I? Should I expect to fumble all my efforts on normal traps? Should I expect to trivialize traps to the point that the DM just removes them all? Somewhere in the middle where I am reliable at identifying the nature of the trap but it takes party effort to disable the traps?

The player only knows about the world through the window the DM and the rules provide. If you don't provide this useful information, it can cause problems. There are multiple ways to provide this useful information. Requiring the players to pester you about every usage is an option, but a poor option for my group. I would prefer a standard that I could deviate from. 20 answers is easier than 100 questions.

I think most of this is solved by a proper session 0 so that you know what you are getting into from the start.

[Segev]

A session zero doesn’t help the DM who has no guideline for whether realizing that the painting of the room hanging in the room shows the room illuminated as if by a window that doesn’t exist in the room, but that the painting itself hangs where said window would be, is a medium, hard, or nigh-impossible task.

“Well, what does he want it to be?” Makes the skill system pointless. If it comes strictly down to his whim or narrative needs, he shouldn’t require rolls at all and should just mention it in the room’s initial description. Or not mention it at all and assume the PCs can’t notice it.

[Sorinth]

There is plenty of consistency between campaigns. All platemails are AC 18. All Bless spells cast at 1st level give +1d4 to attacks and saving throws for up to three creatures. All non-magical long swords used by one hand deal 1d8 damage. All class ability DC saving throws are 8 + relevant ability modifier + proficiency.

What more could I do to be an Evoker who knows about Necromancy? I choose to put proficiency in Arcana. The only reason I don't know about Necromancy is you doing it by fiat. It would have been nice and fine if an Arcana DC table said: Know about a spell in your specialty if you have one or the philosophical aspects there of: DC 5. Know about a spell in your class and not of your specialty if you have one or the philosophical aspects there of including your subclass: DC 10. Knowledge of philosophical aspects not of your specialty or out of your subclass: DC 15. It could be worded better. But Arcana doesn't, so it's all DM whim.

I'm not sure what you really expect as an answer to the first paragraph, it seems to completely irrelevant to the debate at hand.

For the second part, like I said you could put stuff in your backstory or you could be making in game choices to show that you focus on Necromancy.

The skills were made intentionally vague and all-encompassing, but it's not in anyway realistic. For example that someone who takes Survival because they are a desert nomad but during the adventure ends up in the frozen north they aren't going to benefit much from their survival knowledge because the skills/knowledge is so different.

For your table a Level 2 Conjuration Wizard with Arcana proficiency has an auto-success understanding how the Wish spell works. Considering it's the pinnacle of magical knowledge that seems counter-intuitive for most game worlds, but might actually make sense in a game world where all magic is basically the Wish spell and it's merely a question of how much power you can channel. Which is why the whole DC tables don't make a whole lot of sense, there would need to be tables for multiple settings.

[OldTrees1]

It wouldn't work because a lot of the info is hidden. For example, if the PC found some strange magical device and is making the Arcana check to determine what it's used for then they don't know that it's Necromantic in nature and so can't decide whether to self-penalize.

And since both penalties and bonuses applies, if players are allowed to choose that a bonus applies it can lead to problems/abuse.

What bonuses? Let's switch skills to see if this still holds.

A high level highly skilled climber is faced with a low level climb a rope check. We the designers have a few options for how we craft the math of the system. Some climbers will not know how to climb a rope, even if they are very very skilled at climbing and the rope is really really easy to climb.
A) We can presume proficiency means incompetence. We make the math throw the low level check into doubt. Then we have the DM use fiat to fix every default case.
B) We can presume proficiency means competence. We make the math have a high enough skilled character auto pass the low level check. Then we use fiat to account for the exceptions. Either DM fiat or Player fiat will do, either way has the check declared a failure for the exceptions that should fail.

Given this context, regardless about whether it is DM fiat or player fiat causing the exception check to fail, I think you can see the merits of designing the system where proficiency is presumed to mean competence. And thus, high level characters should pass low level checks in their discipline.

As for the specifics of Evokers with Fs in Necromancy class and Int ( Arcana ( Necromancy) ) checks, you can just increase the DC when the difficulty is higher. Having out of specialty knowledge checks be at a higher DC is common if a skill is considered overly generalized.


I think most of this is solved by a proper session 0 so that you know what you are getting into from the start.

And having a baseline makes that part of session 0 take much less time because you can point to the baseline and mention the deviations rather than mention everything from A-Z. Even if only a subsection of the skill system will be used, informing the players of their character's capabilities is easier, faster, better documented, and clearer with a baseline + deviations than if you go A-Z. That saved time can be spent on the other important parts of session 0. I guess the alternative is to deal with leaving the players under informed and just accepting that as a problem if/when it crops up.

However you are in luck, I have had that proper session 0 about that subject in multiple editions of D&D.
3E: Took 1m. Turns out having a baseline and not having bounded accuracy made this much quicker.
5E: Took 30m plus clarification several times during the campaign
And that is for a very very narrow character focus (2 checks in 5E, 4 checks in 3E)
Edit: Misremembered. Corrected the time.

[MeimuHakurei]

If skill checks are supposed to be more/less difficult depending on who does it, why should those static numbers tell me how good a character is? 5e should cut skill and tool proficiencies entirely from the game as well as all class features interacting with it. If baseline DCs for skills are too restrictive for DMs, so are defined bonuses for skills.

[GooeyChewie]

I get to choose to cast Bless or not if another spell would be better. I don't get to choose magic items, but I get to choose using a long sword or great sword or bow and know exactly how much damage I do. I get to choose when to use my class abilities. I know exactly how they work and figure out the tactics to use them against whatever the DM puts out there. I don't get to choose how good I am at many things that's not combat related. I can choose the bonus number I get to roll with, but it tells me nothing about what I can climb or know or perceive. I do get to know the difficulty to hit objects and how much damage I need to do to break one, but it's quasi-cheating since I need to read the DMG. It should have been in the PHB. I also get to know the difficulty of various uses of tools thus know if I can be casual about it using Passive or I need to make some extra effort and roll, but it requires a supplemental splat book. There are so many things that are consistent where the DM gets to plop widgets for the PCs to interact with, and the players know how well they can deal with it in all campaigns everywhere, but some things are denied having such knowledge and they shouldn't be, didn't have to be, and the game would not have been ruined if they were.

The effects of the Bless spell are consistent across different campaigns; the usefulness of preparing/learning it depends on the DM. The damage of a long sword or great sword or bow are consistent across different campaigns; the chances of hitting with those weapons, and thus their effective damage, depends on the DM. Your class abilities are consistent across different campaigns; whether or not those specific class abilities are useful in the campaign at hand depends on the DM. You get to choose what you're good at in combat, just not what the DM will make important in any given combat; you get to choose which skills you want to increase, just not what skills the DM will make important in any given situation.

The effects of increasing your skill bonus by 1 is that when you make a check that has both a chance of success and a chance of failure using that skill, there's a 5% chance you succeed when you would have otherwise failed. That effect is consistent across campaigns. Yes, different DMs may use different DCs or differ as to whether a check is appropriate in the first place. Both are true regardless of edition. In 3.5 one DM might describe all their dungeon walls as "very rough natural rock surfaces" (DC 15), while another describes their dungeon walls as "natural rock walls" (DC 25), while another says their walls are "typical" (DC 20). In 5e the correlating descriptions become "moderately difficult to climb" (DC 15), "very hard to climb" (DC 25) or "hard to climb" (DC 20). The inconsistency between DMs is the same; the only difference is whether those inconsistencies manifest themselves through fluff descriptions (3.5) or through mechanical descriptions (5e).

[Pex]

I'm not sure what you really expect as an answer to the first paragraph, it seems to completely irrelevant to the debate at hand.

For the second part, like I said you could put stuff in your backstory or you could be making in game choices to show that you focus on Necromancy.

The skills were made intentionally vague and all-encompassing, but it's not in anyway realistic. For example that someone who takes Survival because they are a desert nomad but during the adventure ends up in the frozen north they aren't going to benefit much from their survival knowledge because the skills/knowledge is so different.

For your table a Level 2 Conjuration Wizard with Arcana proficiency has an auto-success understanding how the Wish spell works. Considering it's the pinnacle of magical knowledge that seems counter-intuitive for most game worlds, but might actually make sense in a game world where all magic is basically the Wish spell and it's merely a question of how much power you can channel. Which is why the whole DC tables don't make a whole lot of sense, there would need to be tables for multiple settings.

A level 2 wizard would know about the Wish spell by DM fiat because there's no guideline otherwise. By having DC tables you can gate appropriate knowledge behind their respective DCs. 9th level spells could have been DC 30. (If that originally happened. Xanathar uses a more generous formula in identifying spells being cast.) Because of Bounded Accuracy to let the math work there might be an extra layer needed by saying you must be X level and/or class before you're even allowed to roll. That was suggested in another thread to boost warriors being able to do fantastical things with skills. It's a consequence of Bounded Accuracy, not only the existence of DC tables. It's an added complexity but manageable and likely necessary for the verisimilitude since you wouldn't want 2nd level Conjurers to know about Wish if you go by Xanathar. If Bounded Accuracy was ignored for skill use as had been suggested this problem goes away and you can just use DC numbers since DCs of 30+ would then be available.

I'm quite aware things I can do now at low level, if the DM says I can, I can no longer do until higher level because they're gated behind higher DCs than the DMs had given by fiat. I want that. I want there to be a guideline. If something is Easy or Hard put it behind the appropriate DC and not be different based on who is DM that day because for the exact same thing one DM thinks it's Easy when another think it's Hard. Give me a number for swimming a moat, climbing rocks, climbing a wall, and I'm perfectly happy for my 10 ST non-proficient in Athletics warlock I had dice to roll to do it instead of autosuccess because even being Passive wasn't enough. Maybe to swim calm waters Passive is enough, but the climb needs a roll or whatever.


The effects of the Bless spell are consistent across different campaigns; the usefulness of preparing/learning it depends on the DM. The damage of a long sword or great sword or bow are consistent across different campaigns; the chances of hitting with those weapons, and thus their effective damage, depends on the DM. Your class abilities are consistent across different campaigns; whether or not those specific class abilities are useful in the campaign at hand depends on the DM. You get to choose what you're good at in combat, just not what the DM will make important in any given combat; you get to choose which skills you want to increase, just not what skills the DM will make important in any given situation.

The effects of increasing your skill bonus by 1 is that when you make a check that has both a chance of success and a chance of failure using that skill, there's a 5% chance you succeed when you would have otherwise failed. That effect is consistent across campaigns. Yes, different DMs may use different DCs or differ as to whether a check is appropriate in the first place. Both are true regardless of edition. In 3.5 one DM might describe all their dungeon walls as "very rough natural rock surfaces" (DC 15), while another describes their dungeon walls as "natural rock walls" (DC 25), while another says their walls are "typical" (DC 20). In 5e the correlating descriptions become "moderately difficult to climb" (DC 15), "very hard to climb" (DC 25) or "hard to climb" (DC 20). The inconsistency between DMs is the same; the only difference is whether those inconsistencies manifest themselves through fluff descriptions (3.5) or through mechanical descriptions (5e).

Those fluff descriptions matter because they help define the difficulty. In 5E the DM says there's a wall there. No description, just a wall. Can I climb it? One DM says yes, go ahead. Another DM says roll DC 15. Another DM says roll DC 20. Another DM says no. The 5E DM could give a description, but the result is the same. The DM who says no could have told me it's a stone wall. The DM who says DC 15 could have told me it's a smooth wall. Then there's my infamous tree climbing. All I'm told it's a tree. My monk DM said DC 20. My warlock DM said ok. In another game playing a paladin (18 ST, proficient in Athletics) it's DC 15.

[NorthernPhoenix]

There is plenty of consistency between campaigns. All platemails are AC 18. All Bless spells cast at 1st level give +1d4 to attacks and saving throws for up to three creatures. All non-magical long swords used by one hand deal 1d8 damage. All class ability DC saving throws are 8 + relevant ability modifier + proficiency.

What more could I do to be an Evoker who knows about Necromancy? I choose to put proficiency in Arcana. The only reason I don't know about Necromancy is you doing it by fiat. It would have been nice and fine if an Arcana DC table said: Know about a spell in your specialty if you have one or the philosophical aspects there of: DC 5. Know about a spell in your class and not of your specialty if you have one or the philosophical aspects there of including your subclass: DC 10. Knowledge of philosophical aspects not of your specialty or out of your subclass: DC 15. It could be worded better. But Arcana doesn't, so it's all DM whim.

This isn't a good comparison because you're conflating modifiers with targets. The Skill equivalent is that your skill is proficiency + ability modifier, this is as consistent as Bless or swords. But the Target you're applying these modifiers is variable, be it combat or skills. The skill DC is as variable as the enemies AC, HP, or Saves.

And in the Arcana example, you either know about whatever Necromancy topic or you don't depending on what you roll, that's the point of rolling after all. The "fiat" is regarding where you don't have to roll at all, and that's determined by looking at the 0-30 table and comparing it with the individual context of the character and their situation.

[Pex]

This isn't a good comparison because you're conflating modifiers with targets. The Skill equivalent is that your skill is proficiency + ability modifier, this is as consistent as Bless or swords. But the Target you're applying these modifiers is variable, be it combat or skills. The skill DC is as variable as the enemies AC, HP, or Saves.

And in the Arcana example, you either know about whatever Necromancy topic or you don't depending on what you roll, that's the point of rolling after all. The "fiat" is regarding where you don't have to roll at all, and that's determined by looking at the 0-30 table and comparing it with the individual context of the character and their situation.

It's not based on what I roll because Sorinth specifically said he doesn't think Evokers should know about Necromancy. If I'm playing an Evoker in Sorinth's game and an Evoker in Bob's game and in both cases I get a total of 17, Sorinth would say I know nothing about this particular gem I found other than it's valuable while Bob would tell me it's a soul gem and there's a soul inside. I know about this item only based on who is DM that day.

I can even agree with Sorinth as a matter of personal opinion that knowing it was a soul gem has a DC higher than 17, but since 5E does not provide guidelines on the difficulty of similar knowledge and other things it's DM whim on what I can know or do.

[Mjolnirbear]

*snip*

Those fluff descriptions matter because they help define the difficulty. In 5E the DM says there's a wall there. No description, just a wall. Can I climb it? One DM says yes, go ahead. Another DM says roll DC 15. Another DM says roll DC 20. Another DM says no. The 5E DM could give a description, but the result is the same. The DM who says no could have told me it's a stone wall. The DM who says DC 15 could have told me it's a smooth wall. Then there's my infamous tree climbing. All I'm told it's a tree. My monk DM said DC 20. My warlock DM said ok. In another game playing a paladin (18 ST, proficient in Athletics) it's DC 15.

You're asking for what is, essentially, a universal wall stat. All walls are baseline DC whatever to climb, and the DM uses modifiers to reflect real-time changes.

What you're not realizing is it's not at all realistic. There is no such thing as a universal wall.

A palisade is different from a log cabin is different from adobe walls under a cliff is different from rough-cut stone walls with mortar is different from wattle and daub is different from wooden horizontal siding is different from a chain-link fence is different mortar-and-tenoned polished marble is different from alchemically treated cloudstuff in a giant's floating castle is different from a wall covered in volcanized glass in a caldera is different from a natural cliff face A is different from a much harder natural cliff face B is different from a sandy dune-cliff at a beach is different from...

Not taking into consideration assistive devices (climbing claws, grappling hooks, knotted rope, pitons and hammer, spike shoes) or complications (rain, ice, movement, shaking, grease, bird crap, exhaustion).

Check that word count. See how much stuff is there. And I guarantee there are more fantastical and realistic types of walls, fences, cliffs, or other vertical surfaces I didn't even mention. Because the imagination is limitless, you cannot contain it in a simple list.

That's a lot of wasted space for ONE aspect of ONE skill.

Now let's look at climbing a tree. Is it a tall pine with no low branches? Is it an old oak with thick knobby bark? Is it a smooth birch with papery bark and it's swaying with the wind? Is it a gnarled old maple with a perfect climbing spiral of branches? Is it mossy? Raining? Are you being shot at? Maybe it's a weeping willow and the branches are too flexible for climbing? Maybe it suffered from a rot or drought and the boughs are brittle or rotten?

Shall I continue? The differences between swimming in a warm sea and a cold lake? Swimming on a windy day or against a neap tide? Swimming a lazy river or a swift-moving current? Are you trained in different swimming techniques? Are you trying to swim a distance, or trying to stay afloat and not drown?



So now tell me, what is easier... writing a thousand words on all the different edge cases, or asking the DM if it's Easy, Hard, or Very Hard. Then the DM can say "It's smooth marble, without even space to wedge in a spike or piton to make climbing easier; Nearly Impossible" if, for some reason, they need to justify it to the players.

Yes, this absolutely results in a lack of consistency across tables. What you fail to realize is that lack of consistency will be there regardless. The DM decides if the wall is easy to climb or if it's hard. He may base his decision on a mental image, on a logic chain, on a gut feeling, on whether someone tried to make climbing harder as a defensive feature for their not-so-impregnable fort, or maybe he's just had a fight with his kid over whether poop is an acceptable art material and he's just not prepared to think about it over much so he throws out the first number that pops into his head. And this inconsistency will be there regardless of whether there's a table outlining some DCs.


Your warlock that went swimming and climbing without so much as a single check? That's a DM who enables the player, or one who likes the mental image and allowed it, or that the roll was insignificant and not worth the time to roll, or one who decided there was no point in rolling because the warlock can just take as much time as he needs to succeed. It's a completely different DM style to the other one, who hates coming up with random numbers so he sticks to old reliable DC 15. And this happened in every edition. As someone said, the difference with 5e is DMs just stopped pretending they weren't in complete control the whole time.

Every DM runs games differently, from determining DCs to how much combat there is or whether Persuasion is an easier way to say "Alter Reality". You cannot change that, because different people want different kinds of games and want to run different ways to play. DMs develop habits based partly on the players they run with and partly on ideas and (mis)conceptions and you cannot pretend you can put that down on a page and cover all the variables.

You might as well complain that DM X runs the standard rest rules and DM Y runs Gritty Realism variant rest rules.



There is no Platonic Ideal of a Climbable Wall. It is disingenuous to suggest otherwise. You are, perhaps inadvertently, attempting to hold DMs accountable to a single, unified vision, and that just doesn't work.

You've mentioned plate mail several times as a universal constant in D&D. The problem is, it's not. If a DM wants to decide that this bugbear's set of plate is particularly shabby and offers less protection, and that High Queen has perfectly maintained and tailored plate that is made of stronger material using proprietary forgework, and this oiled-up gladiator wears a 'plate jock strap' and it's just as effective as full-body coverage, then the DM can do just that. The DM's decisions are not tied to reality, they're tied to the story in his head that he's sharing with the players.



I can hear you saying now: Ah, but as I pointed out, the base AC 18 is there, and the DMs are simply introducing modifiers. Skills should be no different.

AC is a term that simplifies a lot of different complicated mechanics so that it's useable by players. You're incorporating dodges, parries, shields, blocking, footwork, breathing, stamina, accuracy, targetting, luck, terrain, sweaty grips, minor aches, pain, willpower, aggression, and willingness to perform deadly vile acts of maiming into a simple mechanic: aptitude (ability) + training (proficiency) x circumstances (dis/advantage) vs defense (AC).

It is simplified because if it were not, combat would take all friggen' day. And it did, in 3.x, when players who knew exactly what they planned to attack and how still spent 5 minutes doing math to make sure they had the proper bonus to their roll, while the DM did the same with the target's defenses. It needs to be abstracted to make it useful.

Skills are likewise simplified. No single DC chart can cover all the variables. It also takes up valuable print space that could be used on art, or more subclasses, or lore. No single chart can account for what is in your DM's head about what that wall looks like. Instead, they set the DC chart as "Easy, Medium, Hard, Very Hard, Nearly Impossible".

Plate can look like alchemically treated glass, laminated magical leaves, grungy rusted metal, fine dwarf-work, or a plate bikini, and it's still AC 18. The DM wanted a bad guy that was Hard to hit, so he made the AC Hard, regardless of what the armor actually looks like or what it's made of. If he wanted the Bad Guy to be easier to hit, he'd make it Easy, with an AC of 10 or 11.

It doesn't matter why it's Hard. What matters is the DM set a DC for you, so that's what you have to work with, and yes, what Hard looks like will change at every table, because every DM is different. But Hard is still a simple, easy, constant DC to work with. You might as well name Hard "Plate and Shield". For your purposes, it does exactly the same thing. "Plate and Shield" contains within it all the infinite variation of imagination. So does "Hard".

If you want consistency, stick with one DM. If you dislike that DM's version, find one you can work with. If you insist that being able to switch tables and get consistent results is a requirement for your enjoyment, then, well, you're screwed, because this is an RPG, not a video game. You can climb just about anything in Breath of the Wild, but not *actually* anything; some walls you simply cannot climb, no matter if you know you could use a grappling hook or a Spider Climb spell or Levitate or even use really sticky glue on leaves on your feet. Video game logic only permits a limited amount of creativity. DnD is designed for maximum creativity whilst simplifying ease of play.



There are a lot of problems with 5e's skill system. It's mechanics force the 'expert acrobat pratfalls lol' meme. I think it was you (but maybe it was someone else) that pointing out no one knows how much an Athletics check can increase your Jump distance (something that happens because they added specific rules for jumping but no guide how that interacts with skills). It omitted the very useful take 10 mechanic (that is also extremely simple and easy to incorporate), took ability checks (RAW) and practically speaking turned them into skill checks (limiting creativity and variation), put too many relevant mechanics in obscure places (why is the Hostile/Neutral/Friendly chart in the DMG??) and many more problems that others have already listed and gone into.

Not having DC charts? Not the problem.

[Segev]

So now tell me, what is easier... writing a thousand words on all the different edge cases, or asking the DM if it's Easy, Hard, or Very Hard. Then the DM can say "It's smooth marble, without even space to wedge in a spike or piton to make climbing easier; Nearly Impossible" if, for some reason, they need to justify it to the players.

But how do you know that’s “nearly impossible” and not merely “hard?”

Or that it’s not completely impossible, just like a brick wall is nearly impossible?

[Mjolnirbear]

But how do you know that’s “nearly impossible” and not merely “hard?”

Or that it’s not completely impossible, just like a brick wall is nearly impossible?

Because, as in all things DnD, the DM tells you.

You ask "How hard is it to climb this wall" and the DM tells you whether it's nearly impossible, or merely hard.

You ask the DM how hard it will be to hit the bad guy, and he says "he's fast, nimble, and dodges a lot. You think it will be hard to hit him."

Unless the DM tells you, you don't know if the bad guy is hard to hit because he's dextrous, or he has a feature that adds charisma to his AC, or because he can predict your moves. You just know it's hard, unless the DM chooses to elaborate.

You don't know if the wall is hard to climb because it's polished marble or because the defenders greased the wall with a non-flammable lubricant or because it's raining, unless the DM chooses to elaborate.

The DM often does elaborate, because description adds immersion. But his elaboration is pretty much a justification for the DC he set you. You don't actually need to know why it's hard. You just need to know that it's hard, so you can make your choice on how to interact with the challenge.

[Pex]

You're asking for what is, essentially, a universal wall stat. All walls are baseline DC whatever to climb, and the DM uses modifiers to reflect real-time changes.

What you're not realizing is it's not at all realistic. There is no such thing as a universal wall.




Yes, that is exactly what I want, just like there are universal platemails and long swords. You are quite correct the DM can do whatever he wants. He can say this ogre's platemail is not so good so only has AC 17. That's besides the point. If the DM is going to change any and every rule on a whim then there's no point to having any rules at all, and it becomes total free form Mother May I. I remember hearing there was a game that was just that, but that's not what I'm playing. I expect to be playing D&D which has rules. Any rules the DM does change are house rules, told up front. For all the widgets of stuff, the DM plops them for the PCs to deal with. The widgets don't change. Monster Manual Orc widget has AC 13. Platemail widget has AC 18. DM plops the Orc widget into an enounter then the Platemail widget onto the Orc giving it AC 18. Bam, different AC than what the Monster Manual says but still conistent with how the game works because all DMs who put platemails on Orcs give those Orcs AC 18. For that one Orc who has dented platemail and thus AC 17, that one time thing for the lulz perhaps or it's a clue to something, DM perogotive. If this Orc in platemail is AC 18 while that one is AC 22 and that one is AC 16 and they're all just normal Orcs in normal platemail, I call shenanigans. DMs don't do that because they don't have to make up the AC. For a wall they do, which is what causes the problems. As much as not every wall is the same a table can reflect that by providing different DCs between a rock wall and a smooth stone wall as they are common enough widgets DM use. Then if there is a wall of Foo that's not specifically listed in the table, the DM has a guideline to provide an answer by comparing Foo to a rock wall and smooth stone wall. Rock wall is X. What's the DC to climb a rock wall with a waterfall pounding against it? That's where DM adjudication comes in. Could be X with Disadvantage. Could be X + 5. The important thing is there is an X so that in a different game there's a rock wall and only a rock wall the DC is X.


Because, as in all things DnD, the DM tells you.

You ask "How hard is it to climb this wall" and the DM tells you whether it's nearly impossible, or merely hard.

You ask the DM how hard it will be to hit the bad guy, and he says "he's fast, nimble, and dodges a lot. You think it will be hard to hit him."



You're missing Segev's point. What if you're the DM? How do you know it's easy, hard, or impossible? You don't. It becomes whatever you feel like. DM whim. That's why my warlock is Tarzan swimming moats and climbing rocks but my monk is George of the Jungle climbing trees even though both are ST 10 not proficient in Athletics.

[GooeyChewie]

Rock wall is X. What's the DC to climb a rock wall with a waterfall pounding against it? That's where DM adjudication comes in. Could be X with Disadvantage. Could be X + 5. The important thing is there is an X so that in a different game there's a rock wall and only a rock wall the DC is X.
Using 3.5's guidelines...

If the rock wall has ledges that you can hold on to and stand upon, X =10.
If the rock wall is "very rough," X = 15.
If the rock wall has adequate handholds and footholds, X = 20.
If the rock wall is "rough" (but not "very" rough), X = 25.

You know what decides the details of the wall? DM's whim.



You're missing Segev's point. What if you're the DM? How do you know it's easy, hard, or impossible? You don't. It becomes whatever you feel like. DM whim. That's why my warlock is Tarzan swimming moats and climbing rocks but my monk is George of the Jungle climbing trees even though both are ST 10 not proficient in Athletics.

Using the stats above, a 3.5 DM could easily say those rocks your Warlock climbed had ledges and you took 10, while those trees your Monk attempted to climb were rough (not very rough) and even a natural 20 wouldn't cut it.

If you prefer to think of DCs in fluff terms instead of mechanical terms, that's your opinion and we can simply disagree. But let's not pretend that a handful of sample DCs is going to make DMs any more consistent with each other or create any sort of universal wall stat.

[Mjolnirbear]

*snip*



You're missing Segev's point. What if you're the DM? How do you know it's easy, hard, or impossible? You don't. It becomes whatever you feel like. DM whim. That's why my warlock is Tarzan swimming moats and climbing rocks but my monk is George of the Jungle climbing trees even though both are ST 10 not proficient in Athletics.

Yes. DM whim. As is everything in the game. It has always been that way.

Memorizing tables doesn't help a DM run a table. Until it's memorized, the table sits twiddling their thumbs while the DM looks up "wooden wall, vertical posts (palisade), windy, icy conditions". Learning to make judgement calls is easier, simpler, and faster. It also gets right to the point because you don't need to memorize anything; you simply decide on the spot how much you need this roll to challenge the players. 5e is overwhelmingly the most popular edition, and is much, much easier to DM than 2/3e partly because it's so simple once you get over the initial hurdle of panicking at making a decision without guideposts. I say this as a DM over several editions; I didn't start trusting myself as a DM until 5th.

So when Zelda and Link climb a wall, the DM can picture the wall, imagine the challenges, and describe is so the player's can guess at the DC...

... Or the DM can think "this is a minor wall for a small bandit lord, so it's Easy". Or "This wall was built by the most paranoid of evil bad guys with no expense spared for security. They pulled out all the stops. This is next to impossible to climb."

The DC isn't there to model verisimilitude. It's there to fit the story and the needs of the table. The DM could just as easily decide, once the players get to the bandit lord, that they haven't been sufficiently challenged yet; or that the party was not discrete enough so the bandit lord prepared with extra guards to shoot climbers and to slather the walls with something greasy and make sure all easy hand holds are chiseled off. Because part of the DM's job is to adapt as the situation changes.

Similarly, when he wants to run an easy fight, he sends a bunch of unarmored kobolds at you. When he wants you to have a more challenging fight, he sends out the kobold champion in a breastplate and shield. He changes the DC to fit the story.


Using 3.5's guidelines...

If the rock wall has ledges that you can hold on to and stand upon, X =10.
If the rock wall is "very rough," X = 15.
If the rock wall has adequate handholds and footholds, X = 20.
If the rock wall is "rough" (but not "very" rough), X = 25.

You know what decides the details of the wall? DM's whim.

Using the stats above, a 3.5 DM could easily say those rocks your Warlock climbed had ledges and you took 10, while those trees your Monk attempted to climb were rough (not very rough) and even a natural 20 wouldn't cut it.

If you prefer to think of DCs in fluff terms instead of mechanical terms, that's your opinion and we can simply disagree. But let's not pretend that a handful of sample DCs is going to make DMs any more consistent with each other or create any sort of universal wall stat.

Exactly. Fluff and mechanics are different.

You can wear your chainmail jockstrap and have it be the same as your ally's chainmail gimp suit and mechanically, it's the same.

Verisimilude is a bad goal when it comes to mechanics. Mechanics are abstractions designed to cover the minutae. HP aren't meat points, they're abstractions that represent stamina, luck, evasion, blocking, and minor wounds. You could, if you were so inclined, stab someone in the eye and virtually guarantee you've won the fight; but you can't easily model that with abstractions, partly because then fights would always end with eyeball jelly and brain matter after the first weapon attack.

You could introduce called shots, and many have. But the problem is that it makes combat slower, more complex, more rules-intensive and less friendly to new people.

A DC chart attempts to model verisimilitude. Modelling verisimilitude adds complexity. More complexity has a cost in time, ease of use, difficulty for players and opportunities for conflict. As a DM, I don't actually need that chart and my games run smoother and faster in part because it is faster. Because when my players ask if they can climb the walls of the pagoda to capture the evil princess, I don't need to agonize over realism, verisimilitude, materials, construction, ornamentation, weather, or climbing tools; and I don't need to go out and climb a wall myself to see how easy and hard it is (because what's easy or hard for me won't match anyone else at the table).

Instead, I use the DC I feel fits best, and narrate it a bit to justify the DC I have set (and allow players additional info to help overcome the challenges, like using pitons for missing handholds and Fog Cloud to eliminate archers).

Fast, simple mechanic, not needing any memorization or hunting through books. In fact, the less a DM needs to read off a page, the smoother and easier the game runs.

In the end, the DC is the only info you need to interact with a game. It gives you a concrete goal which you will know instantly whether you succeeded or failed. The rest is all window dressing that makes the game more fun and immersive.

[NorthernPhoenix]

Yes, that is exactly what I want, just like there are universal platemails and long swords. You are quite correct the DM can do whatever he wants. He can say this ogre's platemail is not so good so only has AC 17. That's besides the point. If the DM is going to change any and every rule on a whim then there's no point to having any rules at all, and it becomes total free form Mother May I. I remember hearing there was a game that was just that, but that's not what I'm playing. I expect to be playing D&D which has rules. Any rules the DM does change are house rules, told up front. For all the widgets of stuff, the DM plops them for the PCs to deal with. The widgets don't change. Monster Manual Orc widget has AC 13. Platemail widget has AC 18. DM plops the Orc widget into an enounter then the Platemail widget onto the Orc giving it AC 18. Bam, different AC than what the Monster Manual says but still conistent with how the game works because all DMs who put platemails on Orcs give those Orcs AC 18. For that one Orc who has dented platemail and thus AC 17, that one time thing for the lulz perhaps or it's a clue to something, DM perogotive. If this Orc in platemail is AC 18 while that one is AC 22 and that one is AC 16 and they're all just normal Orcs in normal platemail, I call shenanigans. DMs don't do that because they don't have to make up the AC.


Orcs don't use "Player Platemail Widget" though, they use Heavy Orc Armor! Or Light Orc Armor, or whatever else in between that fits. You're pretty close to getting it now. The only reason i don't give different orcs different AC is because i find it to be more trouble than its worth, so they all have the same, whatever i want that to be, to make my life easier. But that's the only reason, not out of some kind of simulationist desire for cross-game consistency.

[Pex]

Using 3.5's guidelines...

If the rock wall has ledges that you can hold on to and stand upon, X =10.
If the rock wall is "very rough," X = 15.
If the rock wall has adequate handholds and footholds, X = 20.
If the rock wall is "rough" (but not "very" rough), X = 25.

You know what decides the details of the wall? DM's whim.




Using the stats above, a 3.5 DM could easily say those rocks your Warlock climbed had ledges and you took 10, while those trees your Monk attempted to climb were rough (not very rough) and even a natural 20 wouldn't cut it.

If you prefer to think of DCs in fluff terms instead of mechanical terms, that's your opinion and we can simply disagree. But let's not pretend that a handful of sample DCs is going to make DMs any more consistent with each other or create any sort of universal wall stat.

Yes, exactly. The DM doesn't have to come up with a number. The number is provided for him. When I play with a different DM it's the same numbers. The only fiat is the DM deciding there's a rock wall there.


Yes. DM whim. As is everything in the game. It has always been that way.



DM whim is placing the widgets. He decides if it's an orc or an ogre or a wall. The game provides the numbers so the DM doesn't have to, at least for everything except skill use in 5E. The game tells everyone platemail AC is 18. It tells everyone long sword does 1d8 damage. Why is it such a horrible thing to tell everyone climbing a rock wall is DC 15?

[NorthernPhoenix]

DM whim is placing the widgets. He decides if it's an orc or an ogre or a wall. The game provides the numbers so the DM doesn't have to, at least for everything except skill use in 5E. The game tells everyone platemail AC is 18. It tells everyone long sword does 1d8 damage. Why is it such a horrible thing to tell everyone climbing a rock wall is DC 15?

Because they're not the same, you're conflating modifiers and targets. Player Skill modifiers are as consistent as player weapons and armour. Enemy weapons and armor can be anything, and so can skill DC.

[OldTrees1]

Because they're not the same, you're conflating modifiers and targets. Player Skill modifiers are as consistent as player weapons and armour. Enemy weapons and armor can be anything, and so can skill DC.

Um, the Monster Manual exists (see "orc" and "ogre" in the quote you quoted). Pex is not conflating modifiers and targets.

Enemy weapons and armor can be anything, but the Monster Manual exists. My players might face an orc, and ogre, or an orog. I can using anything for those monsters, but the Monster Manual still provides an example. Almost as if having examples does not prevent the DCs from being anything, it just adds a baseline.

[NorthernPhoenix]

Um, the Monster Manual exists (see "orc" and "ogre" in the quote you quoted). Pex is not conflating modifiers and targets.

Enemy weapons and armor can be anything, but the Monster Manual exists. My players might face an orc, and ogre, or an orog. I can using anything for those monsters, but the Monster Manual still provides an example. Almost as if having examples does not prevent the DCs from being anything, it just adds a baseline.

I think there is a greater culture of allowance for changing the Monster statblocks vs changing Skill DCs and that Wizards was aware of this when they designed the rules the way they did. The player shouldn't be looking to challenge or "gatcha" the DM on monsters deviating from the Monster Manual, and shouldn't do the same for any potential skill DCs either. But coming out of 3.5/4e, that was the culture that had developed. To reverse this, Wizards had to cut the Skill examples entirely since the tables had (possibly unintentionally) given the impression of being simulationist dogma, rather than examples of play.

[Sorinth]

It's not based on what I roll because Sorinth specifically said he doesn't think Evokers should know about Necromancy. If I'm playing an Evoker in Sorinth's game and an Evoker in Bob's game and in both cases I get a total of 17, Sorinth would say I know nothing about this particular gem I found other than it's valuable while Bob would tell me it's a soul gem and there's a soul inside. I know about this item only based on who is DM that day.

I can even agree with Sorinth as a matter of personal opinion that knowing it was a soul gem has a DC higher than 17, but since 5E does not provide guidelines on the difficulty of similar knowledge and other things it's DM whim on what I can know or do.

Just to clarify it's not a question of Evokers not knowing Necromancy, it's that a situation has called for an Arcana check. Because of it's necromantic nature a Necromancer doesn't need to roll and I'd just give them the information, everyone else would have to roll.

But regardless yes whether a skill is useful is DM dependent but this isn't even only a question of DC. I might run a campaign where you gain no useful knowledge from making Insight checks not because I make the DCs super hard but because there's nothing to actually learn. But in Bob's game Insight might be extremely important skill. This is true for 5e and it was true for every edition prior, how much value you get from skills is going to vary a lot from game to game.

[Sorinth]

But how do you know that’s “nearly impossible” and not merely “hard?”

Or that it’s not completely impossible, just like a brick wall is nearly impossible?

I would ask why does it matter that you give the "correct" DC?

Because to a certain extent it's irrelevant how hard the thing actually is, it's impossible if you don't want the players going that way. It's Hard if you want the players who specialized in that skill to gain some benefit, and it's moderate or even easy if you want to reward creative thinking.

[GooeyChewie]

Yes, exactly. The DM doesn't have to come up with a number. The number is provided for him. When I play with a different DM it's the same numbers. The only fiat is the DM deciding there's a rock wall there.
Did you read that post? It detailed how using the example DCs from 3.5 four different DMs could have four different DC for a rock wall. And those DCs could fall anywhere from automatic success on a take 10 to impossible without significant skill bonuses. I don't understand why you think one DM describing it as a "very rough rock wall" for a DC 15 and another DM describing it as a "rough rock wall" for DC 25 is somehow less of a DM fiat than one DM describing the wall as moderately difficult to climb for a DC 15 and another DM describing it as very hard to climb for a DC 25.

[Segev]

Because, as in all things DnD, the DM tells you.

You ask "How hard is it to climb this wall" and the DM tells you whether it's nearly impossible, or merely hard.

You ask the DM how hard it will be to hit the bad guy, and he says "he's fast, nimble, and dodges a lot. You think it will be hard to hit him."

Unless the DM tells you, you don't know if the bad guy is hard to hit because he's dextrous, or he has a feature that adds charisma to his AC, or because he can predict your moves. You just know it's hard, unless the DM chooses to elaborate.

You don't know if the wall is hard to climb because it's polished marble or because the defenders greased the wall with a non-flammable lubricant or because it's raining, unless the DM chooses to elaborate.

The DM often does elaborate, because description adds immersion. But his elaboration is pretty much a justification for the DC he set you. You don't actually need to know why it's hard. You just need to know that it's hard, so you can make your choice on how to interact with the challenge.I apologize. I was unclear.

How does the DM know it's "nigh impossible" rather than merely "hard" or "medium?" How does he know it's not ACTUALLY impossible and that climbing a wall isn't nigh impossible without a rope?

If your answer is, "He decides," then how is he to decide, and why does he need a monster manual rather than just "deciding" how hard it is to kill a monster?


I would ask why does it matter that you give the "correct" DC?

Because to a certain extent it's irrelevant how hard the thing actually is, it's impossible if you don't want the players going that way. It's Hard if you want the players who specialized in that skill to gain some benefit, and it's moderate or even easy if you want to reward creative thinking.So skill checks are meant to be railroading, and aren't meant to have any connection to the fiction of the game?

The inclusion of suggestions, especially couched as "in case you need a reference to help you decide, here are some suggestions," would only help, and cannot hurt. Players are not magically unable to argue over how hard something is just because there's nothing printed; they can argue for easier difficulties and the DM has less backup to argue back, and so it just winds up being the DM declaring and screw any sense of verisimilitude. Or the DM caving because he doesn't know.

And if a DM doesn't need them, he can make his own determinations. Phrased as suggestions in absence of anything else, he doesn't even need house rules if he chooses to ignore the suggestions.

But as written, there's no link between tasks and difficulty. And as a DM, I have a lot of things that I can't tell how hard to make them.

[Pex]

Did you read that post? It detailed how using the example DCs from 3.5 four different DMs could have four different DC for a rock wall. And those DCs could fall anywhere from automatic success on a take 10 to impossible without significant skill bonuses. I don't understand why you think one DM describing it as a "very rough rock wall" for a DC 15 and another DM describing it as a "rough rock wall" for DC 25 is somehow less of a DM fiat than one DM describing the wall as moderately difficult to climb for a DC 15 and another DM describing it as very hard to climb for a DC 25.

The fiat is the placement of the wall, not the DC. Rough rock wall is always DC 25 while very rough rock wall is DC 15. The only difference is one DM placed a rough rock wall while the other placed a very rough rock wall. However, when the next rock wall comes along with the first DM and it's a very rough rock wall it will be the same DC as what the other DM had with his very rough rock wall. As I said those fluff distinctions matter, in 3E's case. In 5E there are no distinctions so one DM says it's a very rough rock wall and would give DC 20 while another DM says it's a rough rock wall and gives it DC 10. In another scenario two DMs just say it's a rock wall. No fluff modifier, just "rock wall". However, they'll give two different DCs because they disagree on the difficulty of climbing them. Replace rock wall with tree and you get my warlock/monk discrepancy.

[Sorinth]

So skill checks are meant to be railroading, and aren't meant to have any connection to the fiction of the game?

Never said that, you certainly can railroad the players path my making skill checks that go off the path but you can just as easily use it to encourage the rule of cool by setting easy DCs.

In fact I would say in practice not having the pre-defined values will more likely encourage the rule of cool because a DM is far more likely to set an easy DC for something cool when there is no pre-defined table, and the DM that wants to railroad you will do it regardless.


The inclusion of suggestions, especially couched as "in case you need a reference to help you decide, here are some suggestions," would only help, and cannot hurt. Players are not magically unable to argue over how hard something is just because there's nothing printed; they can argue for easier difficulties and the DM has less backup to argue back, and so it just winds up being the DM declaring and screw any sense of verisimilitude. Or the DM caving because he doesn't know.

And if a DM doesn't need them, he can make his own determinations. Phrased as suggestions in absence of anything else, he doesn't even need house rules if he chooses to ignore the suggestions.

But as written, there's no link between tasks and difficulty. And as a DM, I have a lot of things that I can't tell how hard to make them.

I'll ask again why is it important that you set the exact/perfect DC for the task?

[Kyutaru]

How does the DM know it's "nigh impossible" rather than merely "hard" or "medium?" How does he know it's not ACTUALLY impossible and that climbing a wall isn't nigh impossible without a rope?

If your answer is, "He decides," then how is he to decide, and why does he need a monster manual rather than just "deciding" how hard it is to kill a monster?
He doesn't need a monster manual. Making determinations was what they did even for monsters in the old school D&D. There were tons of monsters described in books and magazines that were only descriptions with no stats at all. The DM decided how lethal the monsters were and what CR to place them since Level is merely an abstract representation of campaign progress rather than true strength. The Order of the Stick even mentions this early in the comic series and has a few monsters show up that are unkillable because they were never given a statblock.

People keep underestimating just how much DM discretion makes up this game and how the rules and system serve merely as guidelines for creating your own content and campaign. When you purchase existing content you're asking someone else to do that work for you and give you interesting options to include in your world. When you purchase an adventure book you're leaving campaign creation in someone else's hands. But none of this is necessary and it's not even in the spirit of the game. The content published is often rudimentary and short with mere ideas from which more stories can flourish. A game based on sparking the imagination seems to keep running into trouble with those lacking it.


But as written, there's no link between tasks and difficulty. And as a DM, I have a lot of things that I can't tell how hard to make them.
Intentional. Each DM and their world can be run at differing power levels. If yours is a gritty campaign built on realism then climbing that wall is extremely hard. Jumping over pits is dangerous and foolish. Maybe even access to healing magic isn't available at every local church and healing potions aren't just sold over the counter at the pub. Likewise, spellcasters are NOT granted every spell in the book by default part of world-building is tailoring those lists to suit the campaign setting and power level. Perhaps your wizard doesn't ever learn fireball. The reverse can also happen. You can decide your game takes place in a high fantasy universe full of exceptional people who make climb checks look like they're DC 0. They're regularly jumping over lava and small buildings in anime-style action packed fight scenes. Magic is sold at every store to those who have enough gold and your wizard has access to spells from splatbooks that are non-core.

Now I'm sure you're thinking "but combat!" and wondering why skills don't follow suit. But combat doesn't either. There is no strict list of encounter tables that you must select from. There is no specific enemy that always shows up when traveling through a forest. The DM decides those too and when he throws the party against a Zombie Beholder and a few Shadows then they are in for a bad time. Or he can decide to go with gritty realism and you slash your way through hordes of bandits and goblins and wolves, none of which can really put a dent in full plate once you acquire it. Maybe your supplies get stolen at night because your fighter doesn't have a supernatural Spidey Sense when he's sleeping. Or maybe he can sense enemies a mile away just by their hostile aura. D&D puts no restrictions on what sort of game you can run and comes packaged with a number of options to include at your discretion. But the key part there is at your discretion -- everything from mob encounters to skill check difficulties to available spell lists to the magical armory's stock is up to the DM.

[GooeyChewie]

The fiat is the placement of the wall, not the DC. Rough rock wall is always DC 25 while very rough rock wall is DC 15. The only difference is one DM placed a rough rock wall while the other placed a very rough rock wall. However, when the next rock wall comes along with the first DM and it's a very rough rock wall it will be the same DC as what the other DM had with his very rough rock wall. As I said those fluff distinctions matter, in 3E's case. In 5E there are no distinctions so one DM says it's a very rough rock wall and would give DC 20 while another DM says it's a rough rock wall and gives it DC 10. In another scenario two DMs just say it's a rock wall. No fluff modifier, just "rock wall". However, they'll give two different DCs because they disagree on the difficulty of climbing them. Replace rock wall with tree and you get my warlock/monk discrepancy.

The DM places the wall by fiat.
The DM knows specific descriptions map out to different DCs.
The DM chooses one of those specific descriptions by fiat.
Therefore, the DM decides the DC by fiat. The wall and the description of the wall do not exist independently from the DM. Everything about the wall exists by DM fiat. The DM was always the wizard of Oz pulling all the levers; 5E just pulled back the curtain.

Or to put it another way...

Very hard to climb walls are always DC 25 while moderately difficult to climb walls are DC 15. The only difference is one DM placed a very hard to climb wall while the other placed a moderately difficult to climb wall. However, when the next wall comes along with the first DM and it's a moderately difficult to climb wall it will be the same DC as what the other DM had with his moderately difficult to climb wall. As I said those mechanical distinctions matter, in 5E's case. In 3E there are no distinctions so one DM says it's a moderately difficult to climb wall and would give DC 20 while another DM says it's a very hard to climb wall and gives it DC 10. In another scenario two DMs just say it's a rock wall. No mechanical modifier, just "rock wall". However, they'll give two different DCs because they disagree on the fluff distinctions of rock walls. Replace rock wall with tree and you get a 3E version of your warlock/monk discrepancy.

[Segev]

Never said that, you certainly can railroad the players path my making skill checks that go off the path but you can just as easily use it to encourage the rule of cool by setting easy DCs.

In fact I would say in practice not having the pre-defined values will more likely encourage the rule of cool because a DM is far more likely to set an easy DC for something cool when there is no pre-defined table, and the DM that wants to railroad you will do it regardless.Speaking as a DM, no, it discourages me from calling for skill checks at all and makes me feel guilty if I don’t let PCs succeed at anything they try because I’m denying them the chance to be cool AND every time I do let them succeed at anything because I’m making the game too easy and removing any need for problem solving.

It also leads to lots of arguments and passive aggressive “acceptance” of my rulings with the heavy implication that I am making the tasks unreasonably hard, especially in areas where I have no reference point but my own experience. Which tends to be that, for example, climbing a rope is impossible.

I'll ask again why is it important that you set the exact/perfect DC for the task?

Why is it important to have the DC exist at all?

Why have a monster manual if, as has been said, DMs can, should, and do always make it up without regard for it, and it doesn’t add anything to the game?

If it does add something to the game, why wouldn’t some idea of what a “medium difficulty” jump (beyond your no-check distance) looks like?

If getting a reasonable DC is so unimportant, why have ability checks at all?

[AdAstra]

I think a big thing that makes variable DCs more important for skills than for spells or weapons or monsters is that skills often deal with things that people know very well in the real world.

There are only a handful of people in the modern world with any practical experience with plate armor, and those that do are largely recreating something that's been lost as a craft for centuries, so strictly speaking they're only familiar with modern recreations. No one in our world knows what an Orc is like, and for that matter, most people in the real world have never actually fought a bear, or a horse, or even a cat to the death with a sword. No one in our world has ever cast a spell. It's outside the modern human experience. These things, to us, are abstract concepts.

On the other hand, consider what you do with skills. Plenty of people in the real world climb things, try to convince people of things, identify things from history, or try to determine people's intentions. Even if most people don't do these things often, most people will have done them at some point, or have some point of reference in the real world. While few people have treated grievous injuries, there are plenty that have, and we generally understand the concept and its difficulty. We have numerous occupations for just such tasks, so we can understand, at least at some level, what it involves.

This makes abstracting such things into targets for die rolls far more tricky. If something is off, many people can feel it. But also conversely, it's a lot easier for people to feel out what a task should be like, because it's something they're more familiar with.

Here's an example. If plate armor provided 20 AC, people wouldn't be complaining that that's unrealistic. At most they'd complain about imbalance, but because plate armor is something that, in a practical sense, is completely foreign to most people, they don't really have a basis for thinking something is unrealistic unless it's very far off. Most people probably wouldn't bat an eye if plate gave 20 AC.

On the other hand, if a skill DC table said that climbing a ladder was DC 10, even DC 5, tons of people would complain. Why? Because everyone's climbed a ladder. We know that old ladies climb ladders without incident regularly. Falls from ladders happen, but nowhere near that often. Every person at all acquainted with modern life would balk at the idea that a normal person could fail to climb a ladder under normal circumstances on anything but a natural 1, if that.

It's the Uncanny Valley of verisimilitude. When it's something people are unfamiliar with, you have to come up with something they can use as a reference, and you can get away with inaccuracies as long as they're not egregious. But with things people deal with on a regular basis? Not only is a reference less necessary, you better believe that people will call bull**** fast if there's anything wrong. The closer to reality/people's real-world experience you get, the less margin you have for inaccuracy, and the more you can let the players sweat the details.

[Kane0]

The DM places the wall by fiat.
The DM knows specific descriptions map out to different DCs.
The DM chooses one of those specific descriptions by fiat.
Therefore, the DM decides the DC by fiat.

Or to put it another way...

Very hard to climb walls are always DC 25 while moderately difficult to climb walls are DC 15. The only difference is one DM placed a very hard to climb wall while the other placed a moderately difficult to climb wall.


But the DM has selected a difficulty with corresponding description, which the player will also know. The player will be aware of their chances with a rough wall, because a rough wall is a set DC. The DM decides if it is a rough wall and thus that DC, but there is a point of shared understanding between the player and DM that is not present in 5e.

[Aimeryan]

Think I've got a handle on the argument at hand here. One side here is looking at the situation for a DM like this:


Hmm, I want a wall here. What DC do I want the wall here to be? Well, this DC is appropriate to the campaign at this point based on my experience as a DM, so that. Oh, what type of wall is it? Ah, the players expect a type of wall appropriate to the DC I've given it, so that.

Players: Ah, that wall is going to be easy/challenging/difficult/impossible to climb.

*Averaging across the players and some repeat attempts (with some damage incurred), the players are roughly accurate*

However, the other side is looking at the situation for a DM like this:


Hmm, I want a wall here. Oh, what is the DC of the wall? Ah, I don't know, there are no tables. I'll just make something up based on my experience of wall climbing. Oh, what type of wall is it? Well, I'll go with this type of wall.

Players: Ah, that wall is going to be easy/challenging/difficult/impossible to climb.

*Averaging across the players and some repeat attempts (with some damage incurred), the players are left bewildered, not having matched their expectations at all*.

Guess what? Most DMs are not that experienced with wall climbing; there is a very good chance the DC will be wildly inappropriate. They will also not know how to match up a wall type to that DC, which leaves the players blind to the situation.

For the first view point, the DC is fair because the DM is experienced and can make DM fiat work. For the second view point, DM fiat fails because the DM does not know how to judge the situation - tables would help immensely.

~~~

Then there is also the situation of flat progress affecting reliability with one-shot skill checks making for pretty random results.

[Segev]

Think I've got a handle on the argument at hand here. One side here is looking at the situation for a DM like this:



However, the other side is looking at the situation for a DM like this:



Guess what? Most DMs are not that experienced with wall climbing; there is a very good chance the DC will be wildly inappropriate. They will also not know how to match up a wall type to that DC, which leaves the players blind to the situation.

For the first view point, the DC is fair because the DM is experienced and can make DM fiat work. For the second view point, DM fiat fails because the DM does not know how to judge the situation - tables would help immensely.

~~~

Then there is also the situation of flat progress affecting reliability with one-shot skill checks making for pretty random results.

That sounds about right to me. I also find the first method to be bad because it invites treadmill DCs. That is, it is appropriate to that point in the campaign and party because of the party’s level and the “challenge” of the area, rather than the wall being an organic part of the setting. You certainly can decide that the walls all need a certain DC, but then you need to design the area to justify that.

Even in the first way of looking at it, though, the DM makes up a DC, then describes a wall, and the players have no idea from the wall description how hard it is because the DM has the same inexperience wall-climbing as if he came at it from the second viewpoint.

I also dislike the first way of approaching it because it requires the DM to already guess everything the players might try and fails the moment the players think of something the DM didn’t. If the DM describes the walls for flavor and the players latch onto the idea of climbing them when the SM has not even considered that (where “climbing the walls” is a stand-in for any number of things the players might come up with to try based on what the DM thought of only as flavor description), then the DM is stuck with the second way of looking at it unless he divorces description from DC entirely. At which point the rough-hewn stone wall in the high-level area has a higher DC than the smooth marble slab making up the wall of the ballroom in the low level area.

[GooeyChewie]

But the DM has selected a difficulty with corresponding description, which the player will also know. The player will be aware of their chances with a rough wall, because a rough wall is a set DC. The DM decides if it is a rough wall and thus that DC, but there is a point of shared understanding between the player and DM that is not present in 5e.

That shared understanding absolutely is present in 5e. The 5e shared understanding term for DC25 is "very hard" rather than "rough wall," and that term applies to all sorts of checks instead of having different terms for different types of checks.

I will readily admit there's a trade-off here. One system has a lot of flavor, but requires that you memorize (or look up mid-game) a large number of examples, and sometimes the situation doesn't fit neatly into an existing example. The other system uses generic terms, but can apply those terms to literally any situation. I'm totally fine with having different opinions regarding which system is better. What I'm not fine with is pretending that one system or the other is going to give a player better information about what DCs they'll face throughout the game when they are choosing which skills to boost. The DM who allowed the Warlock to climb the rocks with no check in 5e could just as easily done the same in 3e by describing the climbing surface as having sizable ledges to hold on to and stand on, and the DM would disallowed the Monk to climb trees in 5e could just as easily done the same in 3e by describing the trees as having a rough surface with no real handholds or footholds.

[Segev]

That shared understanding absolutely is present in 5e. The 5e shared understanding term for DC25 is "very hard" rather than "rough wall," and that term applies to all sorts of checks instead of having different terms for different types of checks.

I will readily admit there's a trade-off here. One system has a lot of flavor, but requires that you memorize (or look up mid-game) a large number of examples, and sometimes the situation doesn't fit neatly into an existing example. The other system uses generic terms, but can apply those terms to literally any situation. I'm totally fine with having different opinions regarding which system is better. What I'm not fine with is pretending that one system or the other is going to give a player better information about what DCs they'll face throughout the game when they are choosing which skills to boost. The DM who allowed the Warlock to climb the rocks with no check in 5e could just as easily done the same in 3e by describing the climbing surface as having sizable ledges to hold on to and stand on, and the DM would disallowed the Monk to climb trees in 5e could just as easily done the same in 3e by describing the trees as having a rough surface with no real handholds or footholds.

My problem is that “I want this wall to be DC 25, because of level based reasons” is treadmill scenario design, and means that rough wall you described now is harder to climb than that smooth wall of ice you described 10 levels ago.

It means the muddy footprint in the well-lit ballroom is harder to notice than the muddy footprint in the dark cellar with the dirt floor, because the latter happened 8 levels earlier.

And yes, “but the DM should not call for a check in the ballroom; it’s obvious!” Is correct, but consider that you’re violating the “the DM should just pick a DC based on how hard he wants things to be” design philosophy that’s being pushed as justification for why it’s entirely unnecessary to give even a small hint as to what a “medium difficulty Investigation check” might look like. Sure, the ballroom footprint maybe is trivial. How hard is the cellar footprint? What difficulty? Easy? Hard? Nigh impossible?

There is literally no point to these ratings when they mean nothing but a DC and are connected to no examples. It’s obvious without wasting the word count on defining a DC 15 as “medium” that DC 15 is harder than DC 10 and easier than DC 30.

[Pex]

The DM places the wall by fiat.
The DM knows specific descriptions map out to different DCs.
The DM chooses one of those specific descriptions by fiat.
Therefore, the DM decides the DC by fiat. The wall and the description of the wall do not exist independently from the DM. Everything about the wall exists by DM fiat. The DM was always the wizard of Oz pulling all the levers; 5E just pulled back the curtain.

Or to put it another way...

Very hard to climb walls are always DC 25 while moderately difficult to climb walls are DC 15. The only difference is one DM placed a very hard to climb wall while the other placed a moderately difficult to climb wall. However, when the next wall comes along with the first DM and it's a moderately difficult to climb wall it will be the same DC as what the other DM had with his moderately difficult to climb wall. As I said those mechanical distinctions matter, in 5E's case. In 3E there are no distinctions so one DM says it's a moderately difficult to climb wall and would give DC 20 while another DM says it's a very hard to climb wall and gives it DC 10. In another scenario two DMs just say it's a rock wall. No mechanical modifier, just "rock wall". However, they'll give two different DCs because they disagree on the fluff distinctions of rock walls. Replace rock wall with tree and you get a 3E version of your warlock/monk discrepancy.

Not the same thing at all. In 3E when a tree exists it would be DC 15 in all campaigns. In 5E, the DC was yes, 20, and 15 depending on who was DM that day.

[NorthernPhoenix]

Not the same thing at all. In 3E when a tree exists it would be DC 15 in all campaigns. In 5E, the DC was yes, 20, and 15 depending on who was DM that day.

But it is the same, just with extra steps. In 3e you place the tree, decide the DC, then look in the book for the "correct" description for that DC. All this does is limit how you can describe it.

[Pex]

I think a big thing that makes variable DCs more important for skills than for spells or weapons or monsters is that skills often deal with things that people know very well in the real world.

There are only a handful of people in the modern world with any practical experience with plate armor, and those that do are largely recreating something that's been lost as a craft for centuries, so strictly speaking they're only familiar with modern recreations. No one in our world knows what an Orc is like, and for that matter, most people in the real world have never actually fought a bear, or a horse, or even a cat to the death with a sword. No one in our world has ever cast a spell. It's outside the modern human experience. These things, to us, are abstract concepts.

On the other hand, consider what you do with skills. Plenty of people in the real world climb things, try to convince people of things, identify things from history, or try to determine people's intentions. Even if most people don't do these things often, most people will have done them at some point, or have some point of reference in the real world. While few people have treated grievous injuries, there are plenty that have, and we generally understand the concept and its difficulty. We have numerous occupations for just such tasks, so we can understand, at least at some level, what it involves.

This makes abstracting such things into targets for die rolls far more tricky. If something is off, many people can feel it. But also conversely, it's a lot easier for people to feel out what a task should be like, because it's something they're more familiar with.

Here's an example. If plate armor provided 20 AC, people wouldn't be complaining that that's unrealistic. At most they'd complain about imbalance, but because plate armor is something that, in a practical sense, is completely foreign to most people, they don't really have a basis for thinking something is unrealistic unless it's very far off. Most people probably wouldn't bat an eye if plate gave 20 AC.

On the other hand, if a skill DC table said that climbing a ladder was DC 10, even DC 5, tons of people would complain. Why? Because everyone's climbed a ladder. We know that old ladies climb ladders without incident regularly. Falls from ladders happen, but nowhere near that often. Every person at all acquainted with modern life would balk at the idea that a normal person could fail to climb a ladder under normal circumstances on anything but a natural 1, if that.

It's the Uncanny Valley of verisimilitude. When it's something people are unfamiliar with, you have to come up with something they can use as a reference, and you can get away with inaccuracies as long as they're not egregious. But with things people deal with on a regular basis? Not only is a reference less necessary, you better believe that people will call bull**** fast if there's anything wrong. The closer to reality/people's real-world experience you get, the less margin you have for inaccuracy, and the more you can let the players sweat the details.

It would be the game designers' job to be as realistic as necessary to come up with the numbers that doesn't intrude on the fun. I climbed trees when I was 4 years old. Even in 3E a DC 15 to climb a tree seems a bit absurd from that standpoint. There are people who care about realism, and they can be turned off enough by a game not having it they don't want to play anymore. Someone recently quit 5E because they hate the combat system. Still, hard as it may be to get the numbers right that's what the game designers are supposed to do, so the difficulty of that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done at all. The only problem is the numbers, not the mechanic. Once the numbers are there then we have something to work with. If for some reason a particular DM absolutely hates a number he can house rule it, but for the most part in the general case DMs will use the numbers provided because that's what they bought the rules for.

Now even given getting the numbers is hard it's important the numbers exist instead of the DM having to make it up. Because the DM making it up is why my warlock is Tarzan while my monk is George of the Jungle. Someone has to come up with the numbers. I say that's the game designers' job. Let them deal with the math while the DM deals with the world building.

[GooeyChewie]

My problem is that “I want this wall to be DC 25, because of level based reasons” is treadmill scenario design, and means that rough wall you described now is harder to climb than that smooth wall of ice you described 10 levels ago.

It means the muddy footprint in the well-lit ballroom is harder to notice than the muddy footprint in the dark cellar with the dirt floor, because the latter happened 8 levels earlier.

I never said the DM should base the DCs on level based reasons. I said the DM decides the DC regardless of what system you're using. The DM decided that you'll face a rough wall now, when you faced a smooth wall of ice earlier. The DM decided if the muddy footprint will be in the well-lit ballroom or the dark cellar. The treadmill exists in 3e as well; it just takes the form of muddy footprints only appearing in dark cellars now when they used to appear in ballrooms 8 levels earlier.


And yes, “but the DM should not call for a check in the ballroom; it’s obvious!” Is correct, but consider that you’re violating the “the DM should just pick a DC based on how hard he wants things to be” design philosophy that’s being pushed as justification for why it’s entirely unnecessary to give even a small hint as to what a “medium difficulty Investigation check” might look like. Sure, the ballroom footprint maybe is trivial. How hard is the cellar footprint? What difficulty? Easy? Hard? Nigh impossible?

If I as the DM want the footprint to be easier to find, I'll describe it as standing out and make the DC easier. If I want it to be harder to find, I'll describe it being more obscured and set the DC higher. That decision has more to do with how I want the players to perceive the clue than anything else. Do I want them to feel accomplished because they found a well-hidden clue? Or do I want them to think somethings up because it was too easy? Or anywhere in between. In 3e, I'd look for some chart to figure out exactly how I'd describe it, because if I don't use the appropriate description a player might get the wrong idea. In 5e, I may make up a description that feels right for the difficulty, or I may just flat out say "it was really easy/hard/nigh impossible to locate." I you prefer the 3e option because it feels more right to you, that's fine. But don't pretend that I as the DM didn't set the DC in both editions.


There is literally no point to these ratings when they mean nothing but a DC and are connected to no examples. It’s obvious without wasting the word count on defining a DC 15 as “medium” that DC 15 is harder than DC 10 and easier than DC 30.

I know that climbing a rope is harder than climbing a ladder, but easier than climbing a flat, smooth wall. So are the examples meaningless? The reason 5e lists those difficulties so that DM doesn't accidentally set a bunch of 20+ DCs thinking that anything less is a gimmie, then wonder why the party struggles so much. An experienced DM would realize the problem pretty quickly, but that doesn't make the guidelines useless.


Not the same thing at all. In 3E when a tree exists it would be DC 15 in all campaigns. In 5E, the DC was yes, 20, and 15 depending on who was DM that day.

No! No different! Only different in your mind! (Sorry for going full Yoda there.)

You act as though there is some objective tree, and the DMs are trying to calculate the DC of climbing that tree. In reality, the tree exists because the DM decided it exists, and the DM can describe the tree however they want to get whatever DC they want. A 3e tree can be DC 20 to climb if the DM describes it in a certain way. Your problem wasn't that the DM was playing 5e; your problem was that the DM wanted their trees to be hard to climb, and could do so any edition.


You mention that you climbed trees at 4 years old, and thus DC 15 seems high to you. What's probably happening is that the people who made trees DC 15 by default were not thinking of the same trees you climbed at 4 years old. They were probably thinking more of the tree that Bilbo climbed in Mirkwood in The Hobbit. They probably also were not thinking of giant sequoia trees, which would probably warrant a higher DC. Saying a tree makes for a DC 15 climb check is pretty useless given the wide variety of trees in the world. And that's a big reason why I prefer the 5e system. When the 3e DM says there's a tree with a rough surface and that it's a DC 20 check to climb it, players can argue back and forth for days as to where in the examples it should fall. But in 5e when the DM says it's a DC 20 tree to climb, and the players say that sounds pretty hard, the DM can say yeah, because not all trees are equally difficult to climb and this one is hard to climb, and then we can move on with the game.

[OldTrees1]

I think there is a greater culture of allowance for changing the Monster statblocks vs changing Skill DCs and that Wizards was aware of this when they designed the rules the way they did. The player shouldn't be looking to challenge or "gatcha" the DM on monsters deviating from the Monster Manual, and shouldn't do the same for any potential skill DCs either. But coming out of 3.5/4e, that was the culture that had developed. To reverse this, Wizards had to cut the Skill examples entirely since the tables had (possibly unintentionally) given the impression of being simulationist dogma, rather than examples of play.

This would highlight a problem with the culture and WotC choosing to have a design flaw as a means of addressing the culture problem. This does seem plausible which is why my primary criticism with 5E is over the bounded accuracy on non opposed ability checks, rather than the lack of a baseline. While I still see a lack of a baseline as a design flaw, I did notice part of 5E's design was intended to change the culture a bit.


I think the culture has also shifted to include DMs that don't communicate and are adverse to any baseline communication. The DMs can and should have complete control over setting the DC. But the Players should also be knowledgeable about what their character can and cannot do. I see too many proponents, not just for lacking a baseline, but proponents for ignorant players in this thread. That concerns me.

This is also why I asked you earlier if your atypical approach had found any new innovations for solving the knowledge problem in the variable DC space. If you had innovations, then the community could see if those innovations could be applied to the static DC space.

[Aimeryan]

I never said the DM should base the DCs on level based reasons. I said the DM decides the DC regardless of what system you're using. The DM decided that you'll face a rough wall now, when you faced a smooth wall of ice earlier. The DM decided if the muddy footprint will be in the well-lit ballroom or the dark cellar. The treadmill exists in 3e as well; it just takes the form of muddy footprints only appearing in dark cellars now when they used to appear in ballrooms 8 levels earlier.

The opposing argument here is that DCs of many levels should appear in many settings; the way the player is able to guess at the DC is based on how that obstacle is described to them. To be able to do that they need consistency, which means DC X = Fluff X, while DC Y = Fluff Y, and the player needs to be able to make those associations.

While a campaign can be consistent within itself with DM fiat, this can only come about once the players have learnt what that particular DM's fiat is. This leaves players bewildered for large parts of the game. It also requires a DM that tracks everything they have done beforehand, less they become inconsistent. Furthermore, players may be playing multiple campaigns (with different DMs), which puts a steep cost on their memory. Lastly, intuitive design can be lost if the DM did not plan out the DCs beforehand; a natural rocky incline could be given a more difficult DC than a smooth icy wall with water trickling down it.

The argument at hand here is standardisation, so that players are able to make informed decisions - which is both important in the moment and for making character build decisions. It also takes works out of the DM hands and lets them focus on building a fun campaign, which is usually a good thing.

[Segev]

I never said the DM should base the DCs on level based reasons. I said the DM decides the DC regardless of what system you're using. The DM decided that you'll face a rough wall now, when you faced a smooth wall of ice earlier. The DM decided if the muddy footprint will be in the well-lit ballroom or the dark cellar. The treadmill exists in 3e as well; it just takes the form of muddy footprints only appearing in dark cellars now when they used to appear in ballrooms 8 levels earlier.



If I as the DM want the footprint to be easier to find, I'll describe it as standing out and make the DC easier. If I want it to be harder to find, I'll describe it being more obscured and set the DC higher. That decision has more to do with how I want the players to perceive the clue than anything else. Do I want them to feel accomplished because they found a well-hidden clue? Or do I want them to think somethings up because it was too easy? Or anywhere in between. In 3e, I'd look for some chart to figure out exactly how I'd describe it, because if I don't use the appropriate description a player might get the wrong idea. In 5e, I may make up a description that feels right for the difficulty, or I may just flat out say "it was really easy/hard/nigh impossible to locate." I you prefer the 3e option because it feels more right to you, that's fine. But don't pretend that I as the DM didn't set the DC in both editions.



I know that climbing a rope is harder than climbing a ladder, but easier than climbing a flat, smooth wall. So are the examples meaningless? The reason 5e lists those difficulties so that DM doesn't accidentally set a bunch of 20+ DCs thinking that anything less is a gimmie, then wonder why the party struggles so much. An experienced DM would realize the problem pretty quickly, but that doesn't make the guidelines useless.
Okay. How do you decide if the rope is medium, hard, or very hard? If the ladder is trivial, easy, or medium?

I would put the ladder as trivial and the rope as nigh impossible, except I know others would object to that, and I have no idea how much below “nigh impossible” is reasonable IRL nor in the fantasy game of heroic adventurers. Should it also be trivial, or should the mage who casts rope trick find it nigh impossible or very hard or medium difficulty to climb his rope to his sanctuary? What about just to hold his own weight on it while the barbarian pulls him up?

Yes! I can make a judgment about relative difficulties with an example or two. But you’re saying “I have relative difficulties so I can define definite ones.” While it may be true that you can do so, this is because you have at least one of those examples that you already have determined a non-relative difficulty for.

I don’t. (Beyond “trivial” for a ladder. And knowing that my assessment of “nigh impossible” for rope climbing is probably wrong.)

All I’m asking for is an example of at least one task and it’s difficulty (preferably between “easy” and “nigh impossible, inclusive, since “trivial” and “impossible” are not great benchmarks) for each skill. I can use that to calibrate relative difficulties into DCs from there. More are better, but one is all I really need.

But we’re not given that without buying adventure paths and digging through them for examples, when this really should be in the PHB or DMG.

[Pex]

My problem is that “I want this wall to be DC 25, because of level based reasons” is treadmill scenario design, and means that rough wall you described now is harder to climb than that smooth wall of ice you described 10 levels ago.

It means the muddy footprint in the well-lit ballroom is harder to notice than the muddy footprint in the dark cellar with the dirt floor, because the latter happened 8 levels earlier.

And yes, “but the DM should not call for a check in the ballroom; it’s obvious!” Is correct, but consider that you’re violating the “the DM should just pick a DC based on how hard he wants things to be” design philosophy that’s being pushed as justification for why it’s entirely unnecessary to give even a small hint as to what a “medium difficulty Investigation check” might look like. Sure, the ballroom footprint maybe is trivial. How hard is the cellar footprint? What difficulty? Easy? Hard? Nigh impossible?

There is literally no point to these ratings when they mean nothing but a DC and are connected to no examples. It’s obvious without wasting the word count on defining a DC 15 as “medium” that DC 15 is harder than DC 10 and easier than DC 30.

For an odd reason I'm reminded of The Sound Of Music during "Do Re Mi". Maria teaches the children the notes and calls them Do, Re, Mi, etc. Then the littlest one says they don't make sense. Maria responds that's why we use words, one word for each note. (It's actually one syllable, but that's pedantic :smallsmile:.) Easy 10, Moderate 15, Hard 20. That's Do Re Mi. Climbing a Tree is Athletics DC 15. Knowing something about a monster is Arcana DC 10 + CR. Curing a Poison with a healing kit as an Action is Medicine DC 20. Those are the words 5E lacks.





No! No different! Only different in your mind! (Sorry for going full Yoda there.)

You act as though there is some objective tree, and the DMs are trying to calculate the DC of climbing that tree. In reality, the tree exists because the DM decided it exists, and the DM can describe the tree however they want to get whatever DC they want. A 3e tree can be DC 20 to climb if the DM describes it in a certain way. Your problem wasn't that the DM was playing 5e; your problem was that the DM wanted their trees to be hard to climb, and could do so any edition.


You mention that you climbed trees at 4 years old, and thus DC 15 seems high to you. What's probably happening is that the people who made trees DC 15 by default were not thinking of the same trees you climbed at 4 years old. They were probably thinking more of the tree that Bilbo climbed in Mirkwood in The Hobbit. They probably also were not thinking of giant sequoia trees, which would probably warrant a higher DC. Saying a tree makes for a DC 15 climb check is pretty useless given the wide variety of trees in the world. And that's a big reason why I prefer the 5e system. When the 3e DM says there's a tree with a rough surface and that it's a DC 20 check to climb it, players can argue back and forth for days as to where in the examples it should fall. But in 5e when the DM says it's a DC 20 tree to climb, and the players say that sounds pretty hard, the DM can say yeah, because not all trees are equally difficult to climb and this one is hard to climb, and then we can move on with the game.

The DM had to think up a number to climb a tree, so he came up with 20. That's the only reason why it was 20. If it was 3E it would be 15 because then the DM didn't have to think up a number. If it's just a tree, DC 15 and move on. The tree is scenery. If for some reason the DC was not 15 then that tree would be special in some way the DM purposely placed there. It's a treant. A dryad's home. That demon tree thing. The forest is Cursed. It could be special yet still be DC 15, and the player will be surprised if the act of climbing triggers something. If the type of tree matters for a hypothetical climbing table then you could have different examples of trees just like you can have different examples of walls. It gives the DM and players a frame of reference.

When a DM makes up the numbers one DM can give mostly 10s and 15s and another give mostly 15s and 20s. The latter DM's game is harder but not out of malice or intent. The former DM's game is easier but not out of coddling or being a pushover. They don't have a frame of reference so the dynamic of the game changes. As a player I don't know what I can do until the game happens after a few sessions, and by that time it's too late. In game play I'm exasperated because the exact same tasks become flip of the coin whether I can do it or not. In one game I can at least try to search for tracks despite only having a +1 and hope to get lucky while in another I have more confidence with a +5 but get forbidden from even trying. In one game I can climb a tree to check out my surroundings and in another I can't. In one game a player with a high perception can use his passive score to keep watch or look out for danger, but then in another game when it's my turn with the high perception score I'm denied that fun. My choices don't matter.

[Sorinth]

Speaking as a DM, no, it discourages me from calling for skill checks at all and makes me feel guilty if I don’t let PCs succeed at anything they try because I’m denying them the chance to be cool AND every time I do let them succeed at anything because I’m making the game too easy and removing any need for problem solving.

It also leads to lots of arguments and passive aggressive “acceptance” of my rulings with the heavy implication that I am making the tasks unreasonably hard, especially in areas where I have no reference point but my own experience. Which tends to be that, for example, climbing a rope is impossible.

Ok but this sounds like a problem that goes beyond skills, if you create a combat encounter that is very hard for the party there's probably also passive aggressive remarks about how you are trying to kill them.


Why is it important to have the DC exist at all?

Why have a monster manual if, as has been said, DMs can, should, and do always make it up without regard for it, and it doesn’t add anything to the game?

If it does add something to the game, why wouldn’t some idea of what a “medium difficulty” jump (beyond your no-check distance) looks like?

If getting a reasonable DC is so unimportant, why have ability checks at all?

I'm pretty sure this was meant to be rhetorical but the honest answer is that skill checks and by consequence DCs are there to provide fun challenges.

As for why some idea of what a medium difficulty jump should look like, the simple answer is that it depends on the style of game the DM wants to play. If it's supposed to be hyper realistic then you can't jump much (Especially while wearing armor) if it's more anime style game you can jump huge differences.

[Sorinth]

But the DM has selected a difficulty with corresponding description, which the player will also know. The player will be aware of their chances with a rough wall, because a rough wall is a set DC. The DM decides if it is a rough wall and thus that DC, but there is a point of shared understanding between the player and DM that is not present in 5e.

So the problem is solved when describing the wall the DM mentions how it looks like it would be easy/moderate/hard to climb right?

[NorthernPhoenix]

This would highlight a problem with the culture and WotC choosing to have a design flaw as a means of addressing the culture problem. This does seem plausible which is why my primary criticism with 5E is over the bounded accuracy on non opposed ability checks, rather than the lack of a baseline. While I still see a lack of a baseline as a design flaw, I did notice part of 5E's design was intended to change the culture a bit.


I think the culture has also shifted to include DMs that don't communicate and are adverse to any baseline communication. The DMs can and should have complete control over setting the DC. But the Players should also be knowledgeable about what their character can and cannot do. I see too many proponents, not just for lacking a baseline, but proponents for ignorant players in this thread. That concerns me.

This is also why I asked you earlier if your atypical approach had found any new innovations for solving the knowledge problem in the variable DC space. If you had innovations, then the community could see if those innovations could be applied to the static DC space.

To answer the last part of your post, i don't think it helps people who enjoy having a more total certainty in the sense of matching numbers and doing probability math. But it it does provide greater general certainty that their character will be good at what they should be good at by cutting out what i find to be the one flaw of the 5e skill system (Classes not being Great at their specific specialty).

[Kane0]

The argument at hand here is standardisation, so that players are able to make informed decisions - which is both important in the moment and for making character build decisions. It also takes works out of the DM hands and lets them focus on building a fun campaign, which is usually a good thing.
Yeah this.


So the problem is solved when describing the wall the DM mentions how it looks like it would be easy/moderate/hard to climb right?
Yes it helps during play but not when building your character.

[Segev]

Ok but this sounds like a problem that goes beyond skills, if you create a combat encounter that is very hard for the party there's probably also passive aggressive remarks about how you are trying to kill them.There are a lot more materials and guides out there to help you design an encounter that is not going to kill, but will challenge, the party. How good these are is open to debate, but the DMG and the Monster Manual have hundreds of pages on this stuff between them. (Mostly the MM; the DMG has a chapter on encounter design, though, including some dedicated pages to calculating how challenging an encounter is based on CR and XP awards.)


I'm pretty sure this was meant to be rhetorical but the honest answer is that skill checks and by consequence DCs are there to provide fun challenges.How do they do that if the DCs are meaningless? What's the difference between a DC plucked out of thin air, since "getting it right" doesn't matter, and simply deciding that they succeed if they roll an even number on the d20, and fail if they roll an odd one? Is a 50/50 shot of success on anything they try to do a "fun challenge?"


As for why some idea of what a medium difficulty jump should look like, the simple answer is that it depends on the style of game the DM wants to play. If it's supposed to be hyper realistic then you can't jump much (Especially while wearing armor) if it's more anime style game you can jump huge differences.And yet there's not a word about that in the PHB or the DMG, only a line saying that you might jump further than it says you can based on your Strength with a "successful" Athletics check. No guidelines for how to set those DCs for any game, let alone for multiple styles.


For an odd reason I'm reminded of The Sound Of Music during "Do Re Mi". Maria teaches the children the notes and calls them Do, Re, Mi, etc. Then the littlest one says they don't make sense. Maria responds that's why we use words, one word for each note. (It's actually one syllable, but that's pedantic :smallsmile:.) Easy 10, Moderate 15, Hard 20. That's Do Re Mi. Climbing a Tree is Athletics DC 15. Knowing something about a monster is Arcana DC 10 + CR. Curing a Poison with a healing kit as an Action is Medicine DC 20. Those are the words 5E lacks.That's just my point: Do, Re, and Mi are tied to actual musical notes.

Imagine if there weren't any singing going on, and you were taking a "music class" that told you, in text only, that the notes are "do, re, mi, fa, so, la, and ti," and that each was higher-pitched than the previous one. Could you, with absolutely no knowledge of relative pitch, let alone absolute pitch of any of them, then sing a proper scale?

As you say, 5e lacks statements giving any indication what an Easy or Hard Arcana check is. Thus, saying that an Easy check is DC 10 is as meaningless as saying that DC 10 is a DC you could set for an Arcana check.


When a DM makes up the numbers one DM can give mostly 10s and 15s and another give mostly 15s and 20s. The latter DM's game is harder but not out of malice or intent. The former DM's game is easier but not out of coddling or being a pushover. They don't have a frame of reference so the dynamic of the game changes. As a player I don't know what I can do until the game happens after a few sessions, and by that time it's too late. In game play I'm exasperated because the exact same tasks become flip of the coin whether I can do it or not. In one game I can at least try to search for tracks despite only having a +1 and hope to get lucky while in another I have more confidence with a +5 but get forbidden from even trying. In one game I can climb a tree to check out my surroundings and in another I can't. In one game a player with a high perception can use his passive score to keep watch or look out for danger, but then in another game when it's my turn with the high perception score I'm denied that fun. My choices don't matter.
And as a DM, I am unsure which kind of game I'm running, too. Are my players struggling because they're "foolishly" trying to do "stupid" things that are just too hard for characters of their PCs' levels? Or are they struggling because I'm making it too hard for reasonable PCs to do reasonable things? Are they having too easy a time so that there's no challenge because I'm foolishly coddling them with too low DCs? Or is it because they're making clever plans and figuring out neat ways to exploit the world I've set out for them and are making wise choices about the paths of least resistance to try to maximize their success?

[Sorinth]

Yes it helps during play but not when building your character.

There are tons of things that you don't know how useful they will be when character building.

[Sorinth]

There are a lot more materials and guides out there to help you design an encounter that is not going to kill, but will challenge, the party. How good these are is open to debate, but the DMG and the Monster Manual have hundreds of pages on this stuff between them. (Mostly the MM; the DMG has a chapter on encounter design, though, including some dedicated pages to calculating how challenging an encounter is based on CR and XP awards.)

If we are talking material/guides out there then there are plenty of skill DC guides out there too. If we are strictly talking about WOTC published stuff then I'm not sure I actually agree that there is more help designing an encounter to get the right "deadliness" then there is for skill checks.


How do they do that if the DCs are meaningless? What's the difference between a DC plucked out of thin air, since "getting it right" doesn't matter, and simply deciding that they succeed if they roll an even number on the d20, and fail if they roll an odd one? Is a 50/50 shot of success on anything they try to do a "fun challenge?"

I'm not sure what you are trying to argue here. Are you actually claiming that if the DC is off by say 5 because the DM misjudged how hard something is that it makes a skill challenge not fun when the correct DC would've been fun?


And yet there's not a word about that in the PHB or the DMG, only a line saying that you might jump further than it says you can based on your Strength with a "successful" Athletics check. No guidelines for how to set those DCs for any game, let alone for multiple styles.

I think the DMG not providing help on how to run different styles of games is a flaw with the DMG. But I don't think it would've been solved by having pages and pages of skill DC tables.



That's just my point: Do, Re, and Mi are tied to actual musical notes.

Imagine if there weren't any singing going on, and you were taking a "music class" that told you, in text only, that the notes are "do, re, mi, fa, so, la, and ti," and that each was higher-pitched than the previous one. Could you, with absolutely no knowledge of relative pitch, let alone absolute pitch of any of them, then sing a proper scale?

As you say, 5e lacks statements giving any indication what an Easy or Hard Arcana check is. Thus, saying that an Easy check is DC 10 is as meaningless as saying that DC 10 is a DC you could set for an Arcana check.

Do you think that someone actually needs to know the perfect pitch for Do, Re, Mi, ... in order to make a good song?

[Segev]

If we are talking material/guides out there then there are plenty of skill DC guides out there too. If we are strictly talking about WOTC published stuff then I'm not sure I actually agree that there is more help designing an encounter to get the right "deadliness" then there is for skill checks.
I gave the books it appears in in what you quoted. Are you saying monsters aren’t in the monster manual and that the DMG lacks the pages I said it does?



I'm not sure what you are trying to argue here. Are you actually claiming that if the DC is off by say 5 because the DM misjudged how hard something is that it makes a skill challenge not fun when the correct DC would've been fun?

I am claiming that I don’t know that I’m merely five off. That I could be 10 to 20 off. And I have no idea if that’s true nor by how much.

If I tell you I have no idea how hard something is, where does that suggest I’ll only be 5 off the “perfect” DC?



I think the DMG not providing help on how to run different styles of games is a flaw with the DMG. But I don't think it would've been solved by having pages and pages of skill DC tables.

It would be greatly diminished. But I’m not asking for “page and pages.” 1-3 pages would be enough to give an example task or two per skill. Work it in with the list of skills and the brief description of them and it would be only 1-2 more pages than are already spent.

Heck, there’s an entirely useless bit in the DMG that says nothing in a lot of words about assigning DCs. That’s where the easy/medium/hard/nigh impossible labels come in. Spend that space actually giving links between examples and those labels and it would be actually useful.




Do you think that someone actually needs to know the perfect pitch for Do, Re, Mi, ... in order to make a good song?
I think they need more than the names of the notes to pick up what the notes actually are.

[Justin Sane]

Do you think that someone actually needs to know the perfect pitch for Do, Re, Mi, ... in order to make a good song?Yes, absolutely. If you disagree, tell me this - if someone wants to write a book in Draconic, don't you think they should learn Draconic first?

Another example, not knowing what the names of the notes stand for is like hearing "roll 1d8 damage" without knowing what a 1d8 is.

[Christew]

Yeah this.


Yes it helps during play but not when building your character.
I think you could argue that more detailed DC info would make a DMs prep more difficult, not less. Having to reference a book is definitely more effort than merely referencing my own consistency.

As to the character stuff, I don't really get the argument. Not knowing exactly what DCs are is not going to change the relative benefit of proficiency in a skill. Whatever the DC is, you will be more likely to beat it if you have proficiency, expertise, etc than you will without it.

[Sorinth]

I gave the books it appears in in what you quoted. Are you saying monsters aren’t in the monster manual and that the DMG lacks the pages I said it does?

No I'm saying that the advice that is given to create a fair/balanced encounter is extremely slim. For encounters it's here's a number for Easy/Medium/Hard/Deadly. For skills it's here's a number for Very Easy/Easy/Medium/Hard/Very Hard/Nearly Impossible.


I am claiming that I don’t know that I’m merely five off. That I could be 10 to 20 off. And I have no idea if that’s true nor by how much.

If I tell you I have no idea how hard something is, where does that suggest I’ll only be 5 off the “perfect” DC?

You're avoiding the question though, if tomorrow they publish a skill table and you realize for the past few years your Arcana checks were all off by 5 does that knowledge mean all your pevious Arcana checks were not fun?



It would be greatly diminished. But I’m not asking for “page and pages.” 1-3 pages would be enough to give an example task or two per skill. Work it in with the list of skills and the brief description of them and it would be only 1-2 more pages than are already spent.

Heck, there’s an entirely useless bit in the DMG that says nothing in a lot of words about assigning DCs. That’s where the easy/medium/hard/nigh impossible labels come in. Spend that space actually giving links between examples and those labels and it would be actually useful.

Well the 3e skill chapter was 16 pages, and then pretty much every other book published had numerous pages containing extra stuff for skills. And that only covers the one style of play that 3e wanted to cover which we already established as not being enough since we want to cover different styles of games.




I think they need more than the names of the notes to pick up what the notes actually are.

But the goal isn't to identify notes, it's to make music.

[Snails]

I think you could argue that more detailed DC info would make a DMs prep more difficult, not less. Having to reference a book is definitely more effort than merely referencing my own consistency.

Obviously, the 78 pages of PHB invested in spell descriptions is just too hard on DMs, too.

[Justin Sane]

But the goal isn't to identify notes, it's to make music.Go mash your fist into a piano's keys for a few minutes. Is that music? Debatable. Is it good music?

[Sorinth]

Go mash your fist into a piano's keys for a few minutes. Is that music? Debatable. Is it good music?

And yet plenty of musicians create good music without ever being taught the scale or perfect pitch of every note.

[Sorinth]

Obviously, the 78 pages of PHB invested in spell descriptions is just too hard on DMs, too.

And did you find the games where the player/DM had to consult the book every time they cast/thought about casting a spell to be good/fun games?

I'm not sure it's been mentioned before but having the DM arbitrarily decide a DC on the spot creates a much better gaming experience then the same DM spending 5min looking through the books to find the "right" DC. In many cases it's better to get the "rule" wrong but keep the flow of the game going then it is to put the game on pause while players/dms search through books for the right rule.

[Christew]

Obviously, the 78 pages of PHB invested in spell descriptions is just too hard on DMs, too.
I mean yeah, if the DM were solely responsible for the spell system the way that they are for the skill system, then looking up spells in the PHB would be nightmarish. It would gatekeep DMing behind sufficient system mastery to memorize (or at least have a functional working knowledge of) all of the relevant spell effects or inject a ton of dead air into games while the DM looks up spells.

The way spells are laid out in the PHB are kind of a pain without that being true.

[Segev]

No I'm saying that the advice that is given to create a fair/balanced encounter is extremely slim. For encounters it's here's a number for Easy/Medium/Hard/Deadly. For skills it's here's a number for Very Easy/Easy/Medium/Hard/Very Hard/Nearly Impossible.Not as slim as what they have for skills. For combat, we have the loop closed: an encounter with N XP in it is THIS difficulty. What does N XP look like? We have specific entries that give those values and tie them to monsters.

For skills, we have: A Hard skill is DC 20. What does a Hard skill check look like? No clue!


You're avoiding the question though, if tomorrow they publish a skill table and you realize for the past few years your Arcana checks were all off by 5 does that knowledge mean all your pevious Arcana checks were not fun?I'd actually say you're avoiding the question. I am asking what difficulty to assign to a check when I don't know how hard the activity is, or when I suspect my instinct is perhaps wildly off-base but don't know by how much.

I'm sure if a skill book came out tomorrow and it turned out my Arcana checks with 20 off the mark, my players will likely be happy to know that they failed to figure out all those magical things because I screwed up, and that it will be more doable in the future.

Your question about "finding out it's 5 off" has the implicit assumption that it will only be off by 5, and I am rejecting that assumption, because that assumption dodges the real problem I'm having with the skill system's incompleteness.

It's like somebody coming in to complain about their car having blown all four tires and the technician asking him if it's really a big deal if the tire pressure is 1 PSI off from nominal.


Well the 3e skill chapter was 16 pages, and then pretty much every other book published had numerous pages containing extra stuff for skills. And that only covers the one style of play that 3e wanted to cover which we already established as not being enough since we want to cover different styles of games. I was reasonably happy with the 3e skill system as presented, but thought it could actually have been made more interesting with more subsystem tacked on. Consider how many pages upon pages of feats there are. Imagine if the skill system supported an ever-expanding supply of features that were tied to the core list of skills. (I will not go into detail here, but I am not suggesting lots more skills, but rather things you could pick up with a new chargen resource that related to skills.)

But that's neither here nor there. The issue with 5e's skill system isn't that it's not 3e's. They're two different editions with somewhat different goals. The issue with 5e's skill system is that it's incomplete. People keep acting like I'm demanding huge charts and pages and pages of mechanics. I'm not. I'm asking for one to five example tasks for each skill, giving the difficulty of them. "Identifying the difference between a divine and arcane spell is a trivial Arcana check. Learning a new spell is nigh impossible. Predicting the numerological significance of seventeen obscure names of ancient horrors from the far realms and their impact on the plot of this game is a moderate arcana check." Things like that. (No, I don't think my estimations are at all right, here.)


But the goal isn't to identify notes, it's to make music.Alright. So, I hand you a trumpet (or other instrument of similar complexity in which you have no training) and tell you that the names of notes are "do, re, mi," and expect you to play Taps. Can you do it? Of course not. I haven't told you everything you need to know to even begin to make music with a trumpet.

[Pex]

And did you find the games where the player/DM had to consult the book every time they cast/thought about casting a spell to be good/fun games?

I'm not sure it's been mentioned before but having the DM arbitrarily decide a DC on the spot creates a much better gaming experience then the same DM spending 5min looking through the books to find the "right" DC. In many cases it's better to get the "rule" wrong but keep the flow of the game going then it is to put the game on pause while players/dms search through books for the right rule.

Even in 5E people keep referencing the rules to remember how a class ability or spell works. It will happen. The more common skill uses that crop up will become memorized through common use, just as people don't look up Bless but they will look up Find Traps. A player can look it up when it's someone else's turn. Still, yes, this is a disavantage to the system if the tables are lengthy enough. It would help if they aren't, but it's a trade I'm willing to make.

[Man_Over_Game]

I think there's a disconnect on both sides.

We don't need references to DC's to be perfect.

And we don't need a lawless system for the DM to make decisions for themselves.


The majority of the DMG is stuff there to teach you, not to be used as a reference. Most of the randomized tables in there are not things most DMs I know actually use. Most of the book are just things on how to just do your job.

And there's a lot of players that are unhappy over how skills or exploration works, as suggested by the DMG. Moreso than combat, loot, or spells (which have a lot more rules).

We can do our own work to become a perfect DM for our own tables, I think the biggest problem is that there isn't really any usable guidance on how to do so in the manual. We get guidance on how to make combat harder but fair, we get guidance on how to distribute gear and experience across multiple methods, we even get guidance on how to shift DMing roles so that it becomes a group effort.

We don't really get much guidance on how to think about skills, and most of the guidance is surprisingly rigid for the most open-ended system in the game. For example, the exploration bits give you less information on things like "here are common issues that your traveling players need to be concerned about", or "here's now exploration fulfills specific elements at the table". Instead, we get travel times, how heavy rain douses lit fires, or that you'll need to reroll any checks to track things if the creatures being tracked cross a river.

It's good to be reminded of the common sense things (like how visibility may be impaired in heavy rain due to lack of lighting or just weather conditions), but there's not really much guidance as opposed to just more rules.

[Sorinth]

Even in 5E people keep referencing the rules to remember how a class ability or spell works. It will happen. The more common skill uses that crop up will become memorized through common use, just as people don't look up Bless but they will look up Find Traps. A player can look it up when it's someone else's turn. Still, yes, this is a disavantage to the system if the tables are lengthy enough. It would help if they aren't, but it's a trade I'm willing to make.

Sure there is always rules referencing, but the less the better right?

Having tables filled with example DCs is only going to create more rules referencing and slow the game down.

[Segev]

Sure there is always rules referencing, but the less the better right?

Having tables filled with example DCs is only going to create more rules referencing and slow the game down.

Having books filled with monsters is only going to create more rules referencing and slow the game down; the DM should just make up the numbers on the fly and decide when the PCs have dealt enough damage to kill them after a suitably dramatic number of rounds.

It's not about tables for immediate reference (though sure, they can be used that way), but something - ANYTHING - to give a ballpark for what a Medium Difficulty Religion check looks like. The shorter, the better. One example for each difficulty for each skill might be too much to memorize, but enough will stick in the memory for a DM to work from quickly without referencing. Even just two examples - say at Medium and Very Hard - for each skill would be enough to calibrate most things.

[Man_Over_Game]

Sure there is always rules referencing, but the less the better right?

Having tables filled with example DCs is only going to create more rules referencing and slow the game down.

I don't really need to look up the stats of a horse to add a mount to my games. I don't need to know the specific AC of a Guard to ballpark it. I don't need to know whether it took the players 1 or 3 hours to get to their destination. That doesn't mean that information is irrelevant, or that it didn't help me once upon a time. I could recite the mounted rules on command, despite how garbage they are, yet it taught me what kind of concerns I should be on the lookout for with mounted combat in my own games.

Once upon a time, we referenced the attack rules, how multiclassing worked, and what levels you got your proficiency bonuses at. Simply having the information is enough to learn.

Heck, something as complex as Booming Blade's "Willing movement" clause is really just more complicated than is worth debating on for most tables, yet you don't really need to know exactly how it works for it to be good enough. For it to be fun enough.

In the same way with skills, I think that knowing what the difference between a DC 25 and a DC 20 History Check would go a long way for me. As of right now, I have to pull it from a single person's inexperienced bias, for a system of someone else's creation.

Too much information is rarely a bad thing, especially when you have the choice of ignoring it.

Now having too little information? Now that's caused many a downfall, if our own human history is any evidence. There's a reason that book-burning (or even book-banning), for the sake of "removing problems", is basically treated as an honorary war crime by many people.


5e was designed from the ground up with the mentality of "If you don't like it, don't do it", with a ton of reference and rules in the DMG that many tables never even use. What makes skills so special?

[Sorinth]

Not as slim as what they have for skills. For combat, we have the loop closed: an encounter with N XP in it is THIS difficulty. What does N XP look like? We have specific entries that give those values and tie them to monsters.

For skills, we have: A Hard skill is DC 20. What does a Hard skill check look like? No clue!

At the end of the day I don't see there being much difference, the DM is still deciding whether they want an easy or hard encounter just like they are deciding whether they want the skill challenge to be easy or hard.

It seems pretty strange to me that a DM would create the encounter and only then figure out the difficulty and also not making any adjustments because that's just how difficult the task is supposed to be so tough luck if it's too hard. Which is what deciding the details of the skill challenge (Type of wall, etc...) and then checking what it's DC would be.


I'd actually say you're avoiding the question. I am asking what difficulty to assign to a check when I don't know how hard the activity is, or when I suspect my instinct is perhaps wildly off-base but don't know by how much.

I'm sure if a skill book came out tomorrow and it turned out my Arcana checks with 20 off the mark, my players will likely be happy to know that they failed to figure out all those magical things because I screwed up, and that it will be more doable in the future.

Your question about "finding out it's 5 off" has the implicit assumption that it will only be off by 5, and I am rejecting that assumption, because that assumption dodges the real problem I'm having with the skill system's incompleteness.

It's like somebody coming in to complain about their car having blown all four tires and the technician asking him if it's really a big deal if the tire pressure is 1 PSI off from nominal.

Well you have yet to answer why it's important to have the right DC so to claim I'm not answering the question is pretty ironic.

You also seem fixated on the 5 off, let's say you were 20 off the mark for those Arcana checks. Ok, so what? It has no impact on whether your players had fun or not during the game. They either had fun or didn't, whether it is later justified by a books entry isn't going to change whether they had fun or not.

And frankly from your response it sounds very much like they only have fun if they succeeded the check.


I was reasonably happy with the 3e skill system as presented, but thought it could actually have been made more interesting with more subsystem tacked on. Consider how many pages upon pages of feats there are. Imagine if the skill system supported an ever-expanding supply of features that were tied to the core list of skills. (I will not go into detail here, but I am not suggesting lots more skills, but rather things you could pick up with a new chargen resource that related to skills.)

But that's neither here nor there. The issue with 5e's skill system isn't that it's not 3e's. They're two different editions with somewhat different goals. The issue with 5e's skill system is that it's incomplete. People keep acting like I'm demanding huge charts and pages and pages of mechanics. I'm not. I'm asking for one to five example tasks for each skill, giving the difficulty of them. "Identifying the difference between a divine and arcane spell is a trivial Arcana check. Learning a new spell is nigh impossible. Predicting the numerological significance of seventeen obscure names of ancient horrors from the far realms and their impact on the plot of this game is a moderate arcana check." Things like that. (No, I don't think my estimations are at all right, here.)

How does a DC 5 Arcana check to determine whether something is Arcane or Divine (I'm pretty sure this concept doesn't even exist in 5e) and a DC 15+spell level Arcana check to identify a spell being cast (Xanathar's rules) help you determine the difficulty of using Arcana to tell whether someone is magically charmed? Even with examples you have no frame of reference for how difficult the task is because in the real world magic doesn't exist so determining how difficult it is is made up by you the DM anyways.


Alright. So, I hand you a trumpet (or other instrument of similar complexity in which you have no training) and tell you that the names of notes are "do, re, mi," and expect you to play Taps. Can you do it? Of course not. I haven't told you everything you need to know to even begin to make music with a trumpet.

In elementary school music class I got a grade of Non Satisfactory every single year so no I couldn't do it but there are plenty of examples of people who can and did pick up a random instrument they never touched before and could play it.

[Segev]

Well you have yet to answer why it's important to have the right DC so to claim I'm not answering the question is pretty ironic.

You also seem fixated on the 5 off, let's say you were 20 off the mark for those Arcana checks. Ok, so what? It has no impact on whether your players had fun or not during the game. They either had fun or didn't, whether it is later justified by a books entry isn't going to change whether they had fun or not.

And frankly from your response it sounds very much like they only have fun if they succeeded the check.


To try to answer your question with a question: Why bother having DCs, or even combat, at all? Why not just flip a coin; heads, the players win, and tails, the players lose? This applies to anything you'd do a skill check for, and to any combat they get into.

What difference does it make if you do it that way or follow the rules as currently written in D&D 5e?

[Sorinth]

Having books filled with monsters is only going to create more rules referencing and slow the game down; the DM should just make up the numbers on the fly and decide when the PCs have dealt enough damage to kill them after a suitably dramatic number of rounds.

It's not about tables for immediate reference (though sure, they can be used that way), but something - ANYTHING - to give a ballpark for what a Medium Difficulty Religion check looks like. The shorter, the better. One example for each difficulty for each skill might be too much to memorize, but enough will stick in the memory for a DM to work from quickly without referencing. Even just two examples - say at Medium and Very Hard - for each skill would be enough to calibrate most things.

So is your argument that because some referencing the book is inevitable that the goal of minimizing the amount of referencing is pointless?

[Man_Over_Game]

So is your argument that because some referencing the book is inevitable that the goal of minimizing the amount of referencing is pointless?

It's that too much information is a much better problem than too little.

[Sorinth]

To try to answer your question with a question: Why bother having DCs, or even combat, at all? Why not just flip a coin; heads, the players win, and tails, the players lose? This applies to anything you'd do a skill check for, and to any combat they get into.

What difference does it make if you do it that way or follow the rules as currently written in D&D 5e?

Answering a question by asking a question isn't answering the original question it's avoiding it.

[Sorinth]

It's that too much information is a much better problem than too little.

There is certainly a level of too much information that it does become a bigger problem yes.

[Segev]

So is your argument that because some referencing the book is inevitable that the goal of minimizing the amount of referencing is pointless?

No. My argument is that your logic for why we don't need even a single example for skill tasks at difficulties can be extended to arguing that we don't need a monster manual at all.

I'm trying to get across why I find nothing you're saying to be persuasive, and moreover why I feel that you're not understanding my point, since your responses have been to accuse me of dodging your question (which was, itself, after I asked a question that you're accusing me of using to dodge yours), and to proceed to claim "eh, it's not necessary and it's even superior not to have them" with arguments that can equally well apply to monsters and the monster manual.

You've dismissed my concerns over having anything resembling an idea of what the DCs should be, suggesting that it really doesn't matter if I'm 20+ off from the "right" one for tasks, because it's "no less fun" that way. I am waiting for you to address my counter-question of why we should bother having combat systems or DCs at all, rather than just flipping a coin to see if players win or lose every fight and whether they succeed or fail at every skill check. Is it any less fun if done that way?

You seem to be implicitly asserting that it is no less fun if the DCs are all wildly out of whack with anything resembling verisimilitude, and thus it shouldn't matter at all what DC I, as DM, set. I am curious, therefore, what is different about combat that this is not equally true, and why it matters what stats we have or DCs we set for any of it at all. I invite you to demonstrate to me why rolling 2d20 to set DCs for every task isn't just as good as setting DCs based on any other criterion, given your implicit assertion that the DCs set don't matter. If you do not assert that, I ask you to please clarify, because that's what I'm understanding your question, "What does it matter if you don't get the exact right DC [be it 5 or 20 off from what it should be]?" to be implying. If I am misunderstanding, please correct me by telling me what you are implying or pointing to or mean to be the take-away from it.

Because it does matter to me that things make sense in the world I'm running.

Oh, and to address something you seem to be assuming that is actually off from what I want these examples for: I'm not talking about situations where I have deliberately put the wall there to be climbed. I'm talking about situations where I have other obstacles planned, and the players look around at my world as I've described it, and ask me about the composition of the wall. I answer based on the setting they're in and how it would have been designed or come to be or whatnot, and then they say they're going to climb it.

I didn't put the wall there as a "thing to be climbed." I put it there as a wall, and described it based on the location, and how the wall came to be there, etc. If my players have cleverly found an easier way around another obstacle, great. If they've instead found a way that's roughly as difficult, also great. If they're making it harder on themselves than they need to, that's fine, too. But I want to know what the reasonable DC for the wall I have described is. And I don't, because I have zero guidance on how difficult it is to climb ANYTHING. (And while I use "climbing a wall" as an example, this could be "identifying the historical significance of the name 'Ashalderon'" or "determining what the clergy of a temple to XYZ god would be interested in as gifts" or the like. Things I didn't specifically set up as possible routes to a solution, but which PCs absolutely should be allowed to at least TRY, because this isn't a cRPG where only what the programmers planned - and bugs in the code - can possibly work.)

So, if you're asking, "What difference does it make if your Climb DC is 20 off from what it should be?" then I turn it about on you: is it less fun when you literally can't succeed at anything, or when you always succeed at everything, or when you have a 50/50 shot at succeeding at anything, than if there's some grounding in reality, or at least in consistent expectations, with "reasonable" chances to succeed based on the nature of the task?

[Sorinth]

It's worth pointing out that page 236 of the DMG actually addresses this subject under the the The Roll of the Dice section.

[Segev]

Answering a question by asking a question isn't answering the original question it's avoiding it.

Then you're dodging my original question about how to set a DC by asking the question you're insisting I'm dodging. :smalltongue:

But hopefully I've answered it here in this post. Now, could you please attempt to answer mine?

1) How do you determine the DC of a task when you don't know how difficult it is IRL, let alone in the fantasy milleaux of D&D?
2) If it doesn't matter if you're 20+ off from the "right" DC, why do we bother having DCs at all, rather than just flipping a coin? Why do we have a monster manual rather than just declaring a combat won or lost on a coin flip?

It's worth pointing out that page 236 of the DMG actually addresses this subject under the the The Roll of the Dice section.I don't see an explanation there as to why bother with setting DCs at all, rather than just flipping a coin.

I find myself getting angry with you, because I feel like you're the one dancing around my question. I don't think you've answered it yet; my parsing of this thread is that you responded with your own question, which you then insisted I answer and accused me of dodging when I responded with a question that was designed to BE an answer. If I am being unfair, my apologies, but please answer my question. So far, I'm just hearing, "No, you're wrong, and should feel bad for wanting the skill system to be complete when I think it's just fine. Aren't you a fool for caring about how accurate your DCs are, since you shouldn't mind if they're way way off from anything reasonable?" Perhaps that's not what you mean, but it's what I'm getting from your arguments, especially since you won't respond to any of my replies to it, instead insisting that I have to give an answer to your question and when I've tried to I'm dodging the question.

I think I have answered your question. Please respond to that answer, and to my own questions.

If the DCs don't matter, then there's no point to setting them. So why not just flip a coin?

If we don't need references for skill DCs, why do we need them for monsters' stats? Why not just make them up as we go along? And if none of that matters to the fun, why not just flip a coin to decide if the PCs win or lose the whole combat?

The bit on when to roll and when not to roll answers none of that. It only discusses whether rolling the dice gives players a sense of "anything is possible." Well, if a coin-flip enables them to succeed at anything they name on "heads," that certainly is "anything is possible." The Middle Path would then be "flip a coin if you're not sure."

Why is that not superior to setting DCs, if the DCs don't matter?

If the DCs do matter, how can it not matter if you're 20+ off from where they should be?