A proposed ability check compromise

[PhoenixPhyre]

Preface
There's the whole divide between those who want tables for DCs and those who don't. Not going to fight that particular battle per se. None of us have any control over what WotC prints, and none of it will happen in 5e proper.

But I think there's value, no matter what side you're on, on making steps that individual players, DMs, tables, and we as a forum can do to bring alignment and make things work better. Doesn't have to solve the whole problem (for those who believe there is a problem), but tooling and ideas are good to have.

I can't stop you from getting off topic, but I can ask that people leave aside the table/no table debate and consider this particular suggestion on its own.

Proposal
1. For each ability score, state a few things (3-5) that are examples of things that will generally[1] not require a check (even if the other criteria for requiring one are met). Effectively a baseline capability.
1a. If you want to, scale these based on ability score (ie "if your <score> is 10 or higher, you can ...")
2. Where appropriate, give a higher baseline for people with proficiency (ie "if you have proficiency in Arcana, you can generally XYZ without a check"), where XYZ is better (but more specific) than whatever you can normally do with Intelligence generally.
3. Communicate to the players and commit to this.

As individual players
Talk to your DM about implementing this and figuring out what works for your tables.

As DMs
Start thinking about and talking to your players about what works for your tables.

As a forum
Compile lists of things people like to facilitate discussion.

What WotC could do
Add generic baselines to the PHB.
Add discussion to the DMG about changing that for different game styles.

What this doesn't even attempt to do
Standardize across tables by default.
Set DCs for things that do require checks.


These are examples, and I'm not too tied to any of them in either direction. Just off the top of my head.
Strength
<insert the existing defaults about jumping, climbing, swimming, and lifting>
*Break a weak (or weakened) rope binding
* Belay someone up to twice your mass
Athletics proficiency:
* Climb anything not extraordinarily (magically or otherwise) slick under normal conditions (usual climbing 1/2 speed applies)
* <Jumping automatically scales anyway, so...> Take the attack action at the top of a jump
* Swim across rough and moving water under non-storm conditions, even in armor.
* Stand upright against normal waves (such as on a ship deck)

Dexterity
* Balance across a regular ledge or beam at least wide enough for one foot.
* Act normally on a moving ship deck under normal conditions (including wet decks)
* Drop down from a ledge up to twice your character height + 10' (usually ~20') without damage or prone as long as you've got a free hand and something to catch on to (ie lowering yourself down).
* Tie a knot sufficient to hold inanimate objects (bounded by the strength of the rope)
* Swing off of a low chandelier or rope at the end of it without a risk of falling prone and without using an action other than Interact with an Object.
Acrobatics proficiency
* Balance across a slackline (or rigging) under normal conditions up to a good wind (but not a raging storm).
* Act normally on a moving ship deck even in a storm, as long as you're not actively smashed by waves.
* Swing off any handhold up to your normal fall height without a risk of falling prone and without using an action other than Interact with an Object.
* Land from a drop of 10' beyond your normal fall height without falling prone even without a free hand.
Slight of Hand
* Hide a dagger-sized weapon on your person under normal scrutiny (not a strip search)
* Palm a card against normal opponents
* Steal from a backpack or other bag worn by a normal opponent

Constitution
* Run a triathalon. Sure, you might not win, but you won't be Exhausted by default.
* Drink "normal" alcohol up to and including distilled liquors of ~100 proof. Exceptions for magical liquors may apply.
* Travel at a Fast pace day after day

Intelligence
* Establish basic communications without a shared language. May take a while (hour-ish).
* Remember things you've personally studied "on-screen" (ie that we've explicitly mentioned) or that happened in previous sessions.
* Identify and remember traits of common and uncommon (but not rare or legendary) creatures for your area.
* Identify weaknesses and salient traits (like resistances/immunities) when they're encountered. That is, if your attack is resisted, I'll mention that fact.

Wisdom
* Recognize abnormal behavior in common animals
* Understand when you're being openly cursed at or insulted, even if you don't know the language or culture. May not work for veiled insults or Shaka, When the Walls Fell situations.
* Find a decent camping spot in normal terrain (including avoiding obvious insect nests, poison ivy, etc)
* Understand when someone's asking for a bribe (including knowing a roughly appropriate amount)
* See things out in the open/visible creatures
* Hear creatures (even concealed ones) that aren't actively trying to hide within 30' under normal sound conditions
Insight
* Identify a surface or strongly-held bond or ideal after talking to someone
* Reading normal (non-politician or poker-expert) rooms.

Charisma
* Talk to people without unintentionally offending them (under non-adversarial conditions, so not if someone is trying to take offense)


[1] Generally here means "these aren't 100% promises, because sometimes weird stuff happens that may be secret from the characters. But by default..."

[HidesHisEyes]

I think something like this would be good, as long as people understand that the DM doesn’t have to commit these baselines to memory or look them up, that the rule is still “the DM calls for a check and sets the DC in the moment”.

As someone who’s firmly on the no tables side of the debate (no I won’t argue for it here), I don’t personally see a need for these lists. But I agree a compromise could be helpful - I’d just be a bit wary about giving people the wrong impression of how the game works at a fundamental level.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think something like this would be good, as long as people understand that the DM doesn’t have to commit these baselines to memory or look them up, that the rule is still “the DM calls for a check and sets the DC in the moment”.

As someone who’s firmly on the no tables side of the debate (no I won’t argue for it here), I don’t personally see a need for these lists. But I agree a compromise could be helpful - I’d just be a bit wary about giving people the wrong impression of how the game works at a fundamental level.

Yeah. That's why I'd rather have only a couple things per ability score (instead of detailed lists). If I committed to this with my players, I'd also be committing to accept "hey, but I thought that was normally not a check?" from a player and either have to explain that this is one of the exceptions or reconsider. Because I forget stuff I've said[1] quite frequently. And I don't like promising things and then going back on it.

I believe the entire game is a conversation. And as long as the players (or the DM!) aren't trying to rule-bash, we're cool. Talk about rulings openly, come to a decision.

[HidesHisEyes]

Yeah. That's why I'd rather have only a couple things per ability score (instead of detailed lists). If I committed to this with my players, I'd also be committing to accept "hey, but I thought that was normally not a check?" from a player and either have to explain that this is one of the exceptions or reconsider. Because I forget stuff I've said[1] quite frequently. And I don't like promising things and then going back on it.

I believe the entire game is a conversation. And as long as the players (or the DM!) aren't trying to rule-bash, we're cool. Talk about rulings openly, come to a decision.

Definitely. With that in mind I think my only immediate feedback for your first pass list would be that I’d remove references to fall height in actual feet. At that point it becomes a rule. (Of course, D&D already has rules for that but I personally don’t think it needs them).

[PhoenixPhyre]

Definitely. With that in mind I think my only immediate feedback for your first pass list would be that I’d remove references to fall height in actual feet. At that point it becomes a rule. (Of course, D&D already has rules for that but I personally don’t think it needs them).

I'm fine with scaling some things based on absolute numbers (which is what this does)--the 10' number is the distance you can already normally fall before anything happens. Twice your height is just a "ok, tall people can let themselves down off of high ledges easier" thing. I could just say "off of things a bit taller than you are".

[HidesHisEyes]

I'm fine with scaling some things based on absolute numbers (which is what this does)--the 10' number is the distance you can already normally fall before anything happens. Twice your height is just a "ok, tall people can let themselves down off of high ledges easier" thing. I could just say "off of things a bit taller than you are".

That would be good I think. How many people know their D&D character’s height anyway? I know there’s a space for it on character sheets but I assume everyone uses that space for little doodles of their familiar or animal companion.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That would be good I think. How many people know their D&D character’s height anyway? I know there’s a space for it on character sheets but I assume everyone uses that space for little doodles of their familiar or animal companion.

Strangely enough, it's come up a lot at my recent tables. From the 6'+ weirdos to the min-height halfling for whom that was a Big Thing (pardon the pun) and got really really mad if you called him "short" or any variant of that...I think most if not all my players have some idea of their height. Even if it's not down to the inch, I don't know the heights of obstacles to the inch level. They're mostly "a couple Tsun's high" (Tsun being the short halfling) or "...about 10'? Maybe 15?"

[HidesHisEyes]

Strangely enough, it's come up a lot at my recent tables. From the 6'+ weirdos to the min-height halfling for whom that was a Big Thing (pardon the pun) and got really really mad if you called him "short" or any variant of that...I think most if not all my players have some idea of their height. Even if it's not down to the inch, I don't know the heights of obstacles to the inch level. They're mostly "a couple Tsun's high" (Tsun being the short halfling) or "...about 10'? Maybe 15?"

Fair enough, every table is different. I get a headache every time a player asks me how big or tall something. I sort of just say “big enough you’d have to make a check to jump over it”.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Fair enough, every table is different. I get a headache every time a player asks me how big or tall something. I sort of just say “big enough you’d have to make a check to jump over it”.

Yeah. And that's one of the points of this--each table can tune them to their own desires and styles. A very "anime" game might say that the default fall height is "yes". A very "gritty" game might say "no default fall height". But everyone knows going in what the defaults are.

[OldTrees1]

Your list in the opening post was good. I did not have as many additions.

I am a bit more concerned about when something goes from uncertainty to certainty and having the players have that knowledge in advanced. However I found some "level 0 with proficiency" automatic successes to add to the list.


Dexterity
Acrobatics proficiency
* Slide under an obstacle you could crawl under.
Thieves tools
* Jam a lock shut
* Remove the pins from the hinges of a door
Constitution
* Pull an all nighter if not exhausted. You will still end up exhausted, but you don't risk falling asleep the first night.
Wisdom
Survival
* If lost, stop being lost by following terrain like slopes & river to a lake/ocean/bridge.

[JackPhoenix]

That would be good I think. How many people know their D&D character’s height anyway? I know there’s a space for it on character sheets but I assume everyone uses that space for little doodles of their familiar or animal companion.

Even from a GM's perspective, it's a thing that can matter and can enhance worldbuilding, which is why I think WotC are morons for removing that information from racial writeups. A blade trap at 5' or a pressure plate that requires more than 50 lb of weight to trigger are safe for the inhabitants of a dwarven fortress or a kobold warren, but effective against many potential invaders (I've used both before. And in the case of the former, I've had a player say that no, he didn't take damage from the trap I've described, as his elf character is 2 inches shorter). A staircase that's comfortably sized for a goliath may be a difficult terrain for a halfling. And let's not forget having to choose between filling your pockets or leaving the loot behind to have enough carrying capacity to drag the fat (and unconscious) dwarf out of a vault before it collapses...

[Segev]

Seeing as a few examples are all I have been asking for, I find this proposal agreeable.

[HidesHisEyes]

Even from a GM's perspective, it's a thing that can matter and can enhance worldbuilding, which is why I think WotC are morons for removing that information from racial writeups. A blade trap at 5' or a pressure plate that requires more than 50 lb of weight to trigger are safe for the inhabitants of a dwarven fortress or a kobold warren, but effective against many potential invaders (I've used both before. And in the case of the former, I've had a player say that no, he didn't take damage from the trap I've described, as his elf character is 2 inches shorter). A staircase that's comfortably sized for a goliath may be a difficult terrain for a halfling. And let's not forget having to choose between filling your pockets or leaving the loot behind to have enough carrying capacity to drag the fat (and unconscious) dwarf out of a vault before it collapses...

I just think you can do all of that without needing exact measurements. That’s the point of having a powerful, flexible core mechanic.

[stoutstien]

I've been posting such a list on the back of my DM screen for a few years now and it's amazing how helpful it is to get players to be more open in action decoration.

[JackPhoenix]

I just think you can do all of that without needing exact measurements. That’s the point of having a powerful, flexible core mechanic.

What do "flexible core mechanic", whatever is that supposed to mean, has to do with that? And how exactly will you do any of that without knowing the measurements?

"You must be at least 5' tall to enter." "Oh, that's fine, my character is 5'6"."
2 sessions later
"Anyone 5' tall or taller has to make save against the trap." "Well, good luck my character is only 4'8", then!"

"Oh no, we have to get the dwarf out of here, but let's grab at least some of the treasure too! How much does your character weight?"
"I dunno"
"Oh, let's take everything, then, I'm sure we can carry both."

[HidesHisEyes]

What do "flexible core mechanic", whatever is that supposed to mean, has to do with that? And how exactly will you do any of that without knowing the measurements?

"You must be at least 5' tall to enter." "Oh, that's fine, my character is 5'6"."
2 sessions later
"Anyone 5' tall or taller has to make save against the trap." "Well, good luck my character is only 4'8", then!"

"Oh no, we have to get the dwarf out of here, but let's grab at least some of the treasure too! How much does your character weight?"
"I dunno"
"Oh, let's take everything, then, I'm sure we can carry both."

First example, in my game, would be:
“Make a save against the trap. Halflings and gnomes don’t need to, dwarves do need to but have advantage.”

Second example would be:
“Can I grab the treasure and the dwarf?”
“You can try, make a Strength check.”

That’s what I mean by a strong, flexible core mechanic.

[Pex]

Seeing as a few examples are all I have been asking for, I find this proposal agreeable.

The idea is fine and I could get along with it, but until it's officially published in 5E it doesn't help me since I play with DMs who are of the set "Not reading this Forum let alone this thread". I can recognize it as a solution attempt, but it doesn't solve the problem in actual play.

[HidesHisEyes]

I’m assuming most GitPers have seen this by now, but from the One D&D playtest doc:

“The term d20 Test encompasses the three main d20 rolls of the game: ability checks, attack rolls, and saving throws. If something in the game affects d20 Tests, it affects all three of those rolls.
The DM determines whether a d20 Test is warranted in any given circumstance. To be warranted, a d20 Test must have a target number no less than 5 and no greater than 30.”

Seems like a slight compromise right here. Interesting.

[Segev]

I’m assuming most GitPers have seen this by now, but from the One D&D playtest doc:

“The term d20 Test encompasses the three main d20 rolls of the game: ability checks, attack rolls, and saving throws. If something in the game affects d20 Tests, it affects all three of those rolls.
The DM determines whether a d20 Test is warranted in any given circumstance. To be warranted, a d20 Test must have a target number no less than 5 and no greater than 30.”

Seems like a slight compromise right here. Interesting.

I don't see how that's a compromise on the topic of this thread at all. Any more than riding a bus vs. a train to get ice cream is a compromise on the toppings you're ordering on your family pizza.

[KorvinStarmast]

Seems like a slight compromise right here. Interesting. It is a step backwards. Not having crit fails on Ability checks and saves was a good idea. They have gone back to the bad idea. And that's for a different thread. There is one discussing the play test material.

For the OP: as I don't see a problem in the first place, not much to offer to this brain storm.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The idea is fine and I could get along with it, but until it's officially published in 5E it doesn't help me since I play with DMs who are of the set "Not reading this Forum let alone this thread". I can recognize it as a solution attempt, but it doesn't solve the problem in actual play.

That's why there's the "As a Player" section. You can talk to your DMs, bring up the idea (without referencing the forum itself), and talk about it.

I know you want to force everyone to play in one specific way. But that's not going to happen. Nothing we do can do that. Heck, even changing the official rules will do that. Instead, we can and should take steps to make things better, instead of whining that someone else should do it for us.

[Psyren]

I'm not against the idea of working with your table to come up with a few automatic success ideas and communicating them prior to play, but personally I think this is something that can more easily come up organically during play.

For example:
A check like "Does the party recognize the obscure cult symbol denoting high-ranking followers of Jubilex adorning the robes of the evil spellcasters they just fought" could be set as a hard Religion or History check - absent personal knowledge, it takes both a lot of training and reading of religious obscura to recognize what it is at all, and a lot of intelligence to discern the subtle differences denoting rank.

Right off the bat, Wizbang the Wizard and Clarice the Cleric have a chance of having come across this knowledge during their training, so success is possible; they're allowed to roll to see if they know it. Barry the Bard may have also picked up this info from a tale or poem. Even Slick Rick the Rogue may have come across that symbol adorning one of the cult's safehouses or dead-drops, though for him he might lack the training to do much more than say he's seen it before.

By contrast, Bronk the Barbarian and Fenix the Fighter lack this training (and are also not very intelligent), so they would have no chance of being exposed to this prior to the campaign - no roll, automatic failure for them. One situation where they might be allowed to roll is if something specific happened to one of them that might have exposed them to this symbol and some hint of its meaning - say, Bronk's childhood friend joined the cult of Jubilex and the symbol was found scrawled over all their personal effects. Now Bronk gets to roll too, but like Slick Rick, the results of that roll are likely to be lessened by their lack of detailed training or context.

However, if it's later in the campaign and Bronk and Fenix either learned or were told this information they now recognize the symbol. Still no roll, but now it's automatic success. This automatic success is driven by the player's actions, it's intuitive, and it's not based on an arbitrary ability score floor.

TL;DR - Both qualifying to roll and automatic success is something that can be gated by the players' backstories, and change throughout the campaign based on the players' actions. Since I'm going to have to evaluate all that anyway, I'd view trying to establish automatic success ahead of time to largely be wasted effort when I can (and indeed should) adjudicate all the possible versions of it on the fly anyway.

[Pex]

That's why there's the "As a Player" section. You can talk to your DMs, bring up the idea (without referencing the forum itself), and talk about it.

I know you want to force everyone to play in one specific way. But that's not going to happen. Nothing we do can do that. Heck, even changing the official rules will do that. Instead, we can and should take steps to make things better, instead of whining that someone else should do it for us.

I'm not forcing anything, just opining what I would like to see. Same as you in wanting to redo the entire magic system. How long do I have to keep reading of "whining" about wizards?

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm not against the idea of working with your table to come up with a few automatic success ideas and communicating them prior to play, but personally I think this is something that can more easily come up organically during play.

For example:
A check like "Does the party recognize the obscure cult symbol denoting high-ranking followers of Jubilex adorning the robes of the evil spellcasters they just fought" could be set as a hard Religion or History check - absent personal knowledge, it takes both a lot of training and reading of religious obscura to recognize what it is at all, and a lot of intelligence to discern the subtle differences denoting rank.

Right off the bat, Wizbang the Wizard and Clarice the Cleric have a chance of having come across this knowledge during their training, so success is possible; they're allowed to roll to see if they know it. Barry the Bard may have also picked up this info from a tale or poem. Even Slick Rick the Rogue may have come across that symbol adorning one of the cult's safehouses or dead-drops, though for him he might lack the training to do much more than say he's seen it before.

By contrast, Bronk the Barbarian and Fenix the Fighter lack this training (and are also not very intelligent), so they would have no chance of being exposed to this prior to the campaign - no roll, automatic failure for them. One situation where they might be allowed to roll is if something specific happened to one of them that might have exposed them to this symbol and some hint of its meaning - say, Bronk's childhood friend joined the cult of Jubilex and the symbol was found scrawled over all their personal effects. Now Bronk gets to roll too, but like Slick Rick, the results of that roll are likely to be lessened by their lack of detailed training or context.

However, if it's later in the campaign and Bronk and Fenix either learned or were told this information they now recognize the symbol. Still no roll, but now it's automatic success. This automatic success is driven by the player's actions, it's intuitive, and it's not based on an arbitrary ability score floor.

TL;DR - Both qualifying to roll and automatic success is something that can be gated by the players' backstories, and change throughout the campaign based on the players' actions. Since I'm going to have to evaluate all that anyway, I'd view trying to establish automatic success ahead of time to largely be wasted effort when I can (and indeed should) adjudicate all the possible versions of it on the fly anyway.

I'm confused. That doesn't seem responsive at all--the whole point of this is setting some, general benchmarks that you can commit to being automatic success. Not trying to specify anything about specific cases later on. That is, things like "I'm not going to make you roll to see if you remember your own religious tenets". Or "I'm not going to make you roll to lower yourself down from a distance bigger than 10' but shorter than X". Or "yes, if you're proficient in Acrobactics, you can walk across the rigging of a ship under almost any conditions, no roll needed". These are affirmative statements of what you're going to consider automatic success, to try to set the tone for the campaign up front. Not a precommittment to specific cases.

Your example is something that wouldn't belong on such a list anyway.


In that particular case, I could see two different branches.

There are some pieces of information that no, you can't just maybe know. That is, there's no uncertainty. Either you've been exposed to it, in which case you know, or you haven't, in which case you don't. Intelligence checks don't necessarily determine if you've ever seen something--they're not state of the world checks (by default). So either it's in their backstory or has happened in the campaign, in either of which case it's automatic success for anyone. Otherwise, automatic failure for everyone.

Then there are other pieces of information you can figure out or synthesize/recall from general learning. Those get DCs for anyone.

But that may just be a difference in DM style.



I'm not forcing anything, just opining what I would like to see. Same as you in wanting to redo the entire magic system. How long do I have to keep reading of "whining" about wizards?

As a DM, I could, should I choose, redo the magic system. I haven't, in part due to the effort required not being worth it and in part because my players don't want me to. On the other hand, having the official rules changed is something that I can't influence in any material way. Yet it's something that you seem to believe is a prerequisite for anything. You seem to want other groups to change without you lifting a finger (or opening your mouth). And that's not something I can agree with. Every campaign requires negotiations and compromises between the DM and the players. And the DM can't know your wishes unless you vocalize them. So yes, saying "this doesn't fix my problem because I'd have to do something myself about it" comes across (to me) as wanting to have someone else do the talking/work for you. And that I don't have much sympathy for. My proposal was something that everyone can do something about to make their own games better. Not an attempt to "fix the game" as a whole, because that's both pointless and not well defined.

[HidesHisEyes]

I'm not against the idea of working with your table to come up with a few automatic success ideas and communicating them prior to play, but personally I think this is something that can more easily come up organically during play.

For example:
A check like "Does the party recognize the obscure cult symbol denoting high-ranking followers of Jubilex adorning the robes of the evil spellcasters they just fought" could be set as a hard Religion or History check - absent personal knowledge, it takes both a lot of training and reading of religious obscura to recognize what it is at all, and a lot of intelligence to discern the subtle differences denoting rank.

Right off the bat, Wizbang the Wizard and Clarice the Cleric have a chance of having come across this knowledge during their training, so success is possible; they're allowed to roll to see if they know it. Barry the Bard may have also picked up this info from a tale or poem. Even Slick Rick the Rogue may have come across that symbol adorning one of the cult's safehouses or dead-drops, though for him he might lack the training to do much more than say he's seen it before.

By contrast, Bronk the Barbarian and Fenix the Fighter lack this training (and are also not very intelligent), so they would have no chance of being exposed to this prior to the campaign - no roll, automatic failure for them. One situation where they might be allowed to roll is if something specific happened to one of them that might have exposed them to this symbol and some hint of its meaning - say, Bronk's childhood friend joined the cult of Jubilex and the symbol was found scrawled over all their personal effects. Now Bronk gets to roll too, but like Slick Rick, the results of that roll are likely to be lessened by their lack of detailed training or context.

However, if it's later in the campaign and Bronk and Fenix either learned or were told this information they now recognize the symbol. Still no roll, but now it's automatic success. This automatic success is driven by the player's actions, it's intuitive, and it's not based on an arbitrary ability score floor.

TL;DR - Both qualifying to roll and automatic success is something that can be gated by the players' backstories, and change throughout the campaign based on the players' actions. Since I'm going to have to evaluate all that anyway, I'd view trying to establish automatic success ahead of time to largely be wasted effort when I can (and indeed should) adjudicate all the possible versions of it on the fly anyway.

Totally agree with this. Making these assessments on the fly is a fundamental part of how 5E works imo.

[Psyren]

Intelligence checks don't necessarily determine if you've ever seen something--they're not state of the world checks (by default).

I don't see checking whether the character knows something as a "state-of-the-world check." A History check for example, would logically relate to something that happened in the world that the character didn't see firsthand (because it's... y'know, history... unless you're an elf I guess?) and therefore the check is for seeing whether they came across/retained a piece of information through study. For me it would be very rare that a History check would relate to something the characters learned firsthand during the campaign itself, nor that they needed to think to specifically include in their backstory ahead of time.

But yeah, I'm fine chalking that up to a difference in DMing style as you said.


I'm confused. That doesn't seem responsive at all--the whole point of this is setting some, general benchmarks that you can commit to being automatic success. Not trying to specify anything about specific cases later on. That is, things like "I'm not going to make you roll to see if you remember your own religious tenets". Or "I'm not going to make you roll to lower yourself down from a distance bigger than 10' but shorter than X". Or "yes, if you're proficient in Acrobactics, you can walk across the rigging of a ship under almost any conditions, no roll needed". These are affirmative statements of what you're going to consider automatic success, to try to set the tone for the campaign up front. Not a precommittment to specific cases.

Your example is something that wouldn't belong on such a list anyway.

I do understand somewhat what you're going for, but just wanted to highlight how determining this kind of stuff entirely on the fly really isn't that difficult, even for an off-the-cuff example not related to an actual game. I craft the scenario, I know how hard I want the check to be, and I have plausible reasons for asking only certain characters to roll (automatic failure or success for the rest.)

As for your examples... part of the issue I have is that granting automatic success for me would depend not just on the situation and the PC's talent/training, but also the wording the player used for the action - what specifically they're trying to accomplish. Some of yours seem okay but not others, and what the player asks to do would matter.


Totally agree with this. Making these assessments on the fly is a fundamental part of how 5E works imo.

Cheers

[Abracadangit]

Wanted to stop by and say I think this is a cool idea. I've implemented something similar to this in some of my games, effectively "skilltrips" that read kind of like Prestidigitation but for skill proficiencies. I.e. Acrobatics prof lets you (without a check) a) do a somersault, handspring, or other basic gymnastic trick, b) vault over obstacles as low as a fence, etc, etc.

Another reason I like doing it (aside from what's already mentioned) is it adds texture and color to players' skill proficiency choices. Now when a player chooses to be proficient in Acrobatics, they immediately have this cool mental picture of things they can do with Acrobatics. For people who say "Well why can't they envision those things based off of the ability check descriptions in Chapter 7," it's the magic of concrete vs. suggestions. I don't know why it works that way, but it does.

Having said that I agree with the ideas here...


I know you want to force everyone to play in one specific way. But that's not going to happen. Nothing we do can do that. Heck, even changing the official rules will do that. Instead, we can and should take steps to make things better, instead of whining that someone else should do it for us.

I'm a little confused -- the tone of the initial post seems like this is meant to be an olive branch to the people who would like tables, but then you turn around and come out with that rhetoric as soon as one of them shows up.

Like, I appreciate the gesture, but what effect do you think it's gonna have when you bring in that argumentative tone? And heck, Pex was even saying they LIKE the idea, they're just stuck with DMs who won't budge unless it's "official" or whatever.

I dig the mechanical idea, but I get the vibe you want to start the tables debate again. I thought this thread was to avoid that very thing.

[Pex]

As a DM, I could, should I choose, redo the magic system. I haven't, in part due to the effort required not being worth it and in part because my players don't want me to. On the other hand, having the official rules changed is something that I can't influence in any material way. Yet it's something that you seem to believe is a prerequisite for anything. You seem to want other groups to change without you lifting a finger (or opening your mouth). And that's not something I can agree with. Every campaign requires negotiations and compromises between the DM and the players. And the DM can't know your wishes unless you vocalize them. So yes, saying "this doesn't fix my problem because I'd have to do something myself about it" comes across (to me) as wanting to have someone else do the talking/work for you. And that I don't have much sympathy for. My proposal was something that everyone can do something about to make their own games better. Not an attempt to "fix the game" as a whole, because that's both pointless and not well defined.

I never said what other groups must do. I only mentioned what I like and didn't like about games I played. Me not liking my monk can't climb a tree doesn't force that DM to let 10 ST characters climb trees. In fact, I've also been told that the DMs I've played with were playing wrong because they didn't agree to what that particular poster would have done, so in fact they're the ones who want to change how other people play. What I do want is D&D to have skill DC tables, so in a sense that would change how the game is played by other people. You want D&D to change how magic works, so that would change how the game is played by other people. The only difference here is you not liking what I want and will figuratively scream to high heaven of it almost every time I talk about it that I want badwrongthings how dare I. When you express what you don't like as a matter of opinion I can agree with some, disagree with others, but did not say you had badwrongthinking. Like your change to Wish, for example. I disagree it needs to be changed, but if you're going to do it thought it poor to specify Intelligence. You later clarified what you meant by that. I didn't continue on and on you're wrong for wanting to change Wish. Yes, I know you specified for wanting to change it for your own game. I'm talking about how different we were in disagreeing with an opinion. You do want magic in general to change. You accept it's not likely to happen. I accept I'm not likely to get my skill DC tables, but that doesn't mean we both have to stop wanting what we want.

[Psyren]

While no one can force anyone's DM to let a monk climb a tree, we can certainly think a DM who doesn't let a monk climb a tree is being very unreasonable.

[HidesHisEyes]

I use the DMG Variant Rule about mixing and matching different abilities and proficiencies. Climbing a tree could be any combination of Strength/Dexterity and Athletics/Acrobatics, at least potentially. It’s deliberately hazy. I see it as a strength of the system.