Do caster out of combat options matter?

[stoutstien]

And people wonder why I think the rogue is bad. A large portion of their design power is attached to "ask the DM to make it up for you on a case by case basis! It's not like they have anything better to do anyway"

That's the point of the entire genre. If you don't want players and GMs to make adjustments based on dessions from the character's perspective then you are just playing an overly complex boardgame that still takes adjudication to function.

It's intent above all else.

[Aimeryan]

As for the rules this *is* the standard method. The DMG has alternative paths but if you are solely looking at the PHB then this break down is how it works.

The rules are that the DM sets the DC. Yeah, thats it. It doesn't say anything about how the DM sets the DC, which is what leads to the skill system being so DM fiat - i.e., you have a better chance at doing a skill task by feeding your DM pizza rather than bumping character numbers, or being their romantic partner, or, having praised them recently, or, or, or.

So you're correct that at your table, with you as the DM, then how you want to it to work is how it works. Hopefully people carry on playing. Meanwhile, at another table? Not so much.

Skrum is correct - the bounded accuracy goal of the 5e system stymies the flat modifier that can be added, so that the d20 is always in play. This means that while a DC20 check can be made my an untrained mook with the luck of the dice, a DC20 check can also be failed by an uber expert hero. So, the max flat modifier has to be lower than 19 - and what do you know, look at the +17 that Expertise plus max stat of 20 gives (+18 isn't a possibility without changing the max stat to 22, so +17 here is literally right on point). The presence of Expertise stymies the flat modifier of Proficiency in turn, so that the max for non-Expertise plus stat is +11 - roughly half of the average result at max level, with the other half still being the d20. Level further stymies the flat modifier for progression sake, looking at +5 at level 1 with 16 stat for non-Expertise. Basically, Skrum is correct that Proficiency is not big enough to properly encapsulate skills for basically everyone that is not a Rogue or Bard.

Which is why I would advocate for the removal of Expertise, bump Proficiency up, and give Rogues and Bards something else in place.

[Darth Credence]

The DC has to be based on who is attempting it because there isn't a standard DC for anything. Each time a player chooses a potential action you run the cycle for that instance and that instance alone.

You first check if a roll is warranted, because it can't fail or it impossible, before you do anything else. This includes looking at setting a DC. This is determined by who, what, when, how. Only one of those are potentially derived by numbers on a sheet though if you have a consistent group it's easy to just base it on the character flat out. Big strong dude does big strong stuff more readily numbers aside.

Now if you decide that the outcome is uncertain*then* you look at your DC chart and derive a threshold but it's still based on the same things you used to check if the randomness was needed. GMs have two levers with the value and advantage/disadvantage. The later is great to use if you have a bunch of different individuals making similar checks in short secession.

It's ad hoc by design because both the action and outcome is not a set value. That's what open-ended resolution is in a nutshell. Once you try to fix one or the other into a hard number it gets wonky fast.

A party is exploring a dungeon, and arrive at a completely smooth wall, angled back towards them such that the angle from the ground they are on to the wall is about 75 degrees. The wall is high, and about halfway up it has transitioned to hanging over a chasm more than 500 feet deep. There are no visible handholds. The fighter in the group approaches and wants to climb it. You set a DC, the fighter rolls whatever stat you find appropriate, passes, and makes the climb. The cleric then says they want to climb the wall. Eventually, each member of the 13-member party, representing each of the official classes, is going to attempt it as well.

Is the DC the same for all of them? If not, what circumstance do you say is changing enough to change the DC, other than the class of the character attempting the climb?

[Theodoxus]

Which is why I would advocate for the removal of Expertise, bump Proficiency up, and give Rogues and Bards something else in place.

Simpler to just reduce the DCs across the board by 5, as has been expressed. (Or, remove Expertise, keeping everything the same, and grant Rogues and Bards a 5 point bonus.

I prefer the much more complex route of using 3d6 for skills, a base pass/fail of 10, with a graduated success the higher the roll.

A slightly less complex route is basically the same, with a d20 instead - so more swingy. But that was hashed out up thread, with the biggest complaint being what does a 'pass with setback look like' and what does a 'critical success' look like for skills that are more 'pass/fail' than graduated (climb, picking locks, whatever). Some are easier than others, but ultimately, I'd let the player making the roll decide - and then arbitrate that instead of me as DM being put on the spot for each kind of ability check.

[Skrum]

That's the point of the entire genre. If you don't want players and GMs to make adjustments based on dessions from the character's perspective then you are just playing an overly complex boardgame that still takes adjudication to function.

It's intent above all else.

I don't buy this. Abilities used in combat and spells are quite well defined in general. And then there's skills, which are apparently intended to be used in a rules-lite way. It's an awful clash, especially when some classes are heavy on defined powers (like the full spellcasters), and some classes are essentially working in a rules-lite way (rogue).



Which is why I would advocate for the removal of Expertise, bump Proficiency up, and give Rogues and Bards something else in place.

I don't disagree. People keep throwing out these great ideas and I have rethink what I want to do with my new skill system.

Changing things is addictive - I want to keep changing and changing and changing but then I end up with this gigantic mess of rules that appeals to my rules lawyer brain but looks nothing like 5e.

[Theodoxus]

I don't buy this. Abilities used in combat and spells are quite well defined in general. And then there's skills, which are apparently intended to be used in a rules-lite way. It's an awful clash, especially when some classes are heavy on defined powers (like the full spellcasters), and some classes are essentially working in a rules-lite way (rogue).

The difference being combat is 100% contested. So, you have static DCs (for the most part) called Armor Class and Saving Throws. If ability checks were unified across the board (so expanding outside of Strength or Dexterity checks for hitting enemies and Int/Wis/Cha checks for casting spells) you could adjust the mindset of what an ability check is.

Like, instead of saying 'It's a DC X to climb a tree' you'd have different types of trees with a 'Climbing saving throw' or making an Intelligence check to investigate a tome, the book might have an 'Investigation AC'. It's effectively the same, but changing the wording might grant players that are struggling with what an ability check outside of combat actually represents, their 'ah ha!' moment.




Changing things is addictive - I want to keep changing and changing and changing but then I end up with this gigantic mess of rules that appeals to my rules lawyer brain but looks nothing like 5e.

Same... my problem is my best ideas come up when I'm walking or driving... and I just don't have that facile a grasp on tech where I could Talk to Text... so then I try to remember what I wanted, and it sometimes blurs...

After the discussion on Soulknives and Psi-warriors and Aberrant minds - I'm in the (very slow) process of expanding psionics into my very techno-magical home world, and trying to determine the best way for psionics and magic to intermingle. And maybe changing Sorcerers to be the new Psion, using spell points instead of slots; plus maybe stealing from Colville's Talents book (but I HATE the name Talent, so that's dying in a fire - but Sorcerer (or Psion) works fine for the concept. And then, where does that leave Wizards (that I've already relegated to a casting style, not a class) so I might need to bring them back.... and then I was listening to a pod cast campaign and the idea of Mage-Knights came up which totally brought me back to Spheres of Power, and maybe changing the Artificer; the Armorer would make a great Mage-Knight... and yeah, gigantic mess of rules. Boom.

[Skrum]

Simpler to just reduce the DCs across the board by 5, as has been expressed. (Or, remove Expertise, keeping everything the same, and grant Rogues and Bards a 5 point bonus.

I prefer the much more complex route of using 3d6 for skills, a base pass/fail of 10, with a graduated success the higher the roll.

A slightly less complex route is basically the same, with a d20 instead - so more swingy. But that was hashed out up thread, with the biggest complaint being what does a 'pass with setback look like' and what does a 'critical success' look like for skills that are more 'pass/fail' than graduated (climb, picking locks, whatever). Some are easier than others, but ultimately, I'd let the player making the roll decide - and then arbitrate that instead of me as DM being put on the spot for each kind of ability check.

The idea that I've had (well, at least for now, will probably change in 10 minutes) is

Training: while all ability checks use one of the character's ability modifiers, in-game an ability check is a test of a character's training and experience as well as their raw physical or mental ability. This is represented by proficiency - the character has specialized training, practice, and experience that raises their chance of success. Likewise, not having the correct training (proficiency) can limit how successful the character can be - even in physical tests. A rock climber for instance isn't merely strong; they have years of training specific muscle groups and practicing their technique. Some checks in particular are strongly based on the what that character has trained for or read about, and natural talent doesn't mean that much at all.

Trained-only Skills: If a character doesn't have proficiency, they may only attempt checks with a DC of 10 or less for these checks -

Animal Handling
Arcana
History
Medicine
Nature
Religion
Survival

At the DM's discretion, this rule should also apply to other checks like Dex (Sleight of Hand) made to pick a lock, as that is mostly based on knowledge of the lock structure and careful manipulation of specialized tools.

For all other checks, characters suffer disadvantage on their check if the DC is above 10 and they do not have the associated proficiency. That is, if the DM calls for a Strength (athletics) check to climb a difficult wall, and the DC is 15, any character that doesn't have proficiency in athletics will have disadvantage on that check. This rule only applies to checks where proficiency in a skill is relevant - if for instance a character attempts to burst a chain (DC 20 Strength check), there is no associated proficiency so untrained characters wouldn't suffer disadvantage.

[JNAProductions]

The issue with that, to me at least, is I LIKE characters to be baseline competent. Hell, even baseline skilled.

Not saying that’s universal, but it’s how I feel. I’d rather err on the side of “Yes you can” than “No you can’t”

[stoutstien]

A party is exploring a dungeon, and arrive at a completely smooth wall, angled back towards them such that the angle from the ground they are on to the wall is about 75 degrees. The wall is high, and about halfway up it has transitioned to hanging over a chasm more than 500 feet deep. There are no visible handholds. The fighter in the group approaches and wants to climb it. You set a DC, the fighter rolls whatever stat you find appropriate, passes, and makes the climb. The cleric then says they want to climb the wall. Eventually, each member of the 13-member party, representing each of the official classes, is going to attempt it as well.

Is the DC the same for all of them? If not, what circumstance do you say is changing enough to change the DC, other than the class of the character attempting the climb?

If time or other factors is not an issue the as a group they could probably overcome it without touching the dice if the wall is possible to climb to start with.
Assuming the players also approach it from a in-game lens then they will also come up with a solution that isn't smashing there face into the PC sheet and hoping the dice fall in their favor.

[Rafaelfras]

A party is exploring a dungeon, and arrive at a completely smooth wall, angled back towards them such that the angle from the ground they are on to the wall is about 75 degrees. The wall is high, and about halfway up it has transitioned to hanging over a chasm more than 500 feet deep. There are no visible handholds. The fighter in the group approaches and wants to climb it. You set a DC, the fighter rolls whatever stat you find appropriate, passes, and makes the climb. The cleric then says they want to climb the wall. Eventually, each member of the 13-member party, representing each of the official classes, is going to attempt it as well.

Is the DC the same for all of them? If not, what circumstance do you say is changing enough to change the DC, other than the class of the character attempting the climb?

For me, it is. I begun 5th ed in 2015, I have never, ever changed the DC based on who was attempting.

Due to time I usually adapt adventures to my home Forgotten Realms setting, so I did Princes of the Apocalypse, then Storm King Thunder and now Crown of the Oathbreaker. I did a lot of custom stuff in then and always used the numbers suggested in those advetures to similar things, and the guidance on DMG when I am assigning DCs. The numbers never changed based on person, and I never had problems with then nor my players atempting the task. They usually use the success and fails to discover the DC because they know its the same for everyone. Depending how they engage the task they get advantage or disadvantage and I allow group checks as well speacially for stealth. I also follow the guidance that if there are no stakes or chance to fail, no roll is needed at all

[stoutstien]

The rules are that the DM sets the DC. Yeah, thats it. It doesn't say anything about how the DM sets the DC, which is what leads to the skill system being so DM fiat - i.e., you have a better chance at doing a skill task by feeding your DM pizza rather than bumping character numbers, or being their romantic partner, or, having praised them recently, or, or, or.

So you're correct that at your table, with you as the DM, then how you want to it to work is how it works. Hopefully people carry on playing. Meanwhile, at another table? Not so much.

Skrum is correct - the bounded accuracy goal of the 5e system stymies the flat modifier that can be added, so that the d20 is always in play. This means that while a DC20 check can be made my an untrained mook with the luck of the dice, a DC20 check can also be failed by an uber expert hero. So, the max flat modifier has to be lower than 19 - and what do you know, look at the +17 that Expertise plus max stat of 20 gives (+18 isn't a possibility without changing the max stat to 22, so +17 here is literally right on point). The presence of Expertise stymies the flat modifier of Proficiency in turn, so that the max for non-Expertise plus stat is +11 - roughly half of the average result at max level, with the other half still being the d20. Level further stymies the flat modifier for progression sake, looking at +5 at level 1 with 16 stat for non-Expertise. Basically, Skrum is correct that Proficiency is not big enough to properly encapsulate skills for basically everyone that is not a Rogue or Bard.

Which is why I would advocate for the removal of Expertise, bump Proficiency up, and give Rogues and Bards something else in place.

That's why they should print the numbers rather than trying to rely on flavor text to explain the difference between a DC 10 or 15. You don't need to know anything besides that as GM besides a baseline agreement with the table in what is considered the range of possibly.

So in reality the players are setting the DC if you are even halfheartedly shooting for consistently in the margins.

[Skrum]

The issue with that, to me at least, is I LIKE characters to be baseline competent. Hell, even baseline skilled.

Not saying that’s universal, but it’s how I feel. I’d rather err on the side of “Yes you can” than “No you can’t”

Agreed; nor do I want to step on people's general creativity. The "counterbalance" here is that DC 10 is a high DC. Most checks should be in the 8-10 range (an average person is ~55% likely to succeed). A character with a proficiency bonus of +3 and a +4 relevant ability score should often not have to roll as even a 1 would be a success.

Going above 10, like that's really hard stuff. I was thinking things like

DC 15
Climb an overhanging wall with handhold but no footholds, or a relatively smooth surface like a brick wall
Jump 10 ft farther or 5 ft higher than your base distance
Balance on a 2" wide slippery plank
Swim through stormy water

DC 20
Escape from manacles
Swim through a hurricane
Track someone that passed through a forest 2 days ago, and it snowed yesterday

[Theodoxus]

The idea that I've had (well, at least for now, will probably change in 10 minutes) is

Training: while all ability checks use one of the character's ability modifiers, in-game an ability check is a test of a character's training and experience as well as their raw physical or mental ability. This is represented by proficiency - the character has specialized training, practice, and experience that raises their chance of success. Likewise, not having the correct training (proficiency) can limit how successful the character can be - even in physical tests. A rock climber for instance isn't merely strong; they have years of training specific muscle groups and practicing their technique. Some checks in particular are strongly based on the what that character has trained for or read about, and natural talent doesn't mean that much at all.

Trained-only Skills: If a character doesn't have proficiency, they may only attempt checks with a DC of 10 or less for these checks -

Animal Handling
Arcana
History
Medicine
Nature
Religion
Survival

At the DM's discretion, this rule should also apply to other checks like Dex (Sleight of Hand) made to pick a lock, as that is mostly based on knowledge of the lock structure and careful manipulation of specialized tools.

For all other checks, characters suffer disadvantage on their check if the DC is above 10 and they do not have the associated proficiency. That is, if the DM calls for a Strength (athletics) check to climb a difficult wall, and the DC is 15, any character that doesn't have proficiency in athletics will have disadvantage on that check. This rule only applies to checks where proficiency in a skill is relevant - if for instance a character attempts to burst a chain (DC 20 Strength check), there is no associated proficiency so untrained characters wouldn't suffer disadvantage.

I don't see our two ideas being incongruous. It's just a matter of deciding where the breaking point is. What your proposal doesn't do is answer the question as to what is a DC 10 task, which I personally think is the biggest issue with ability checks in 5E. Since they're not codified and the guidance provided is problematic (given the number of threads and hijacked threads there are about skills) - cutting out the arbitrary and subjective nature of them is preferable (IMO, obviously).

I concede that the graduated success option does have it's own issues, it's certainly not perfect - but as long as the DM understands the purpose and is a bit more free with auto success and impossible tasks before even considering rolling, and the arbitration of results is collaborative with the table, I think it exemplifies what attribute checks represent in the fiction.

[GloatingSwine]

I don't see our two ideas being incongruous. It's just a matter of deciding where the breaking point is. What your proposal doesn't do is answer the question as to what is a DC 10 task, which I personally think is the biggest issue with ability checks in 5E. Since they're not codified and the guidance provided is problematic (given the number of threads and hijacked threads there are about skills) - cutting out the arbitrary and subjective nature of them is preferable (IMO, obviously).

I concede that the graduated success option does have it's own issues, it's certainly not perfect - but as long as the DM understands the purpose and is a bit more free with auto success and impossible tasks before even considering rolling, and the arbitration of results is collaborative with the table, I think it exemplifies what attribute checks represent in the fiction.

There's always going to be a certain amount of ruling in checks. I think the guidance could be improved somewhat though if it proceeded from the probabilities.

A DC10 task is something that someone with no particular training or aptitude but also no particular hindrance will succeed at half the time.

[Darth Credence]

If time or other factors is not an issue the as a group they could probably overcome it without touching the dice if the wall is possible to climb to start with.
Assuming the players also approach it from a in-game lens then they will also come up with a solution that isn't smashing there face into the PC sheet and hoping the dice fall in their favor.

I specifically went with a situation that was beyond what would be considered failure proof and require a roll. The basic rules call out that for a sheer or slippery cliff a roll is appropriate. I made it sloping out, so it is beyond sheer, and has no handholds. I made it so that the cliff ends up over a chasm by the time they are halfway up, so there would be a clear consequence for failure. And I asked a very simple question - does the DC change or not?

What I got in return was a complete avoidance of the question. You made a statement that a DC has to be done on a case-by-case basis because it's always different. I gave you a case where it isn't. You don't have to answer, of course - you can ignore the question, you can ignore me, whatever. But it makes me wonder - why would you respond to the question with a complete avoidance of it? What about the question makes you want to deflect it? You can, of course, ignore this question, or ignore me, or answer it, or respond while avoiding it.


For me, it is. I begun 5th ed in 2015, I have never, ever changed the DC based on who was attempting.

Due to time I usually adapt adventures to my home Forgotten Realms setting, so I did Princes of the Apocalypse, then Storm King Thunder and now Crown of the Oathbreaker. I did a lot of custom stuff in then and always used the numbers suggested in those advetures to similar things, and the guidance on DMG when I am assigning DCs. The numbers never changed based on person, and I never had problems with then nor my players atempting the task. They usually use the success and fails to discover the DC because they know its the same for everyone. Depending how they engage the task they get advantage or disadvantage and I allow group checks as well speacially for stealth. I also follow the guidance that if there are no stakes or chance to fail, no roll is needed at all

This is what I do as well for DCs.

[stoutstien]

I specifically went with a situation that was beyond what would be considered failure proof and require a roll. The basic rules call out that for a sheer or slippery cliff a roll is appropriate. I made it sloping out, so it is beyond sheer, and has no handholds. I made it so that the cliff ends up over a chasm by the time they are halfway up, so there would be a clear consequence for failure. And I asked a very simple question - does the DC change or not?

What I got in return was a complete avoidance of the question. You made a statement that a DC has to be done on a case-by-case basis because it's always different. I gave you a case where it isn't. You don't have to answer, of course - you can ignore the question, you can ignore me, whatever. But it makes me wonder - why would you respond to the question with a complete avoidance of it? What about the question makes you want to deflect it? You can, of course, ignore this question, or ignore me, or answer it, or respond while avoiding it.
.

It's not avoidances as it's an incomplete statement. If there no interesting consequences for failure it doesn't need a DC so trying to figure out one is unnecessary. A random hole isn't a consequence untill the players make it one. You can't ignore this for the convenience of forum speak because it's the largest factor in play.

"I climb it" isn't good enough because it only has the who and maybe the when and lacks the how and why. If they start hammering pitons and use a climbing kit you have an entirely different potential DC. Heck maybe they have a background in masonry or stonework.

So would the DC change? Very likely because the actions and intent behind the will.

[Darth Credence]

It's not avoidances as it's an incomplete statement. If there no interesting consequences for failure it doesn't need a DC so trying to figure out one is unnecessary. A random hole isn't a consequence untill the players make it one. You can't ignore this for the convenience of forum speak because it's the largest factor in play.

"I climb it" isn't good enough because it only has the who and maybe the when and lacks the how and why. If they start hammering pitons and use a climbing kit you have an entirely different potential DC. Heck maybe they have a background in masonry or stonework.

So would the DC change? Very likely because the actions and intent behind the will.

It is absolutely avoidance, as is this. There is a consequence for failure - falling down the 500' chasm. That you have decided to ignore that answers every question I had.

[Skrum]

I don't see our two ideas being incongruous. It's just a matter of deciding where the breaking point is. What your proposal doesn't do is answer the question as to what is a DC 10 task, which I personally think is the biggest issue with ability checks in 5E. Since they're not codified and the guidance provided is problematic (given the number of threads and hijacked threads there are about skills) - cutting out the arbitrary and subjective nature of them is preferable (IMO, obviously).

I concede that the graduated success option does have it's own issues, it's certainly not perfect - but as long as the DM understands the purpose and is a bit more free with auto success and impossible tasks before even considering rolling, and the arbitration of results is collaborative with the table, I think it exemplifies what attribute checks represent in the fiction.

This is exactly the main purpose of the Skill Revamp. Setting DCs. Give DMs (well, myself) and players some benchmarks to work with. Get away "Can you jump across the chasm with your base jump? Y/N If yes, hooray! If no, DC 15"

[stoutstien]

It is absolutely avoidance, as is this. There is a consequence for failure - falling down the 500' chasm. That you have decided to ignore that answers every question I had.

No action was taken. Trying to attempt the climb as quickly as possible is not the same as taking precautions as trying to do so as quietly as possible. There are literally countless factors that could come on play once you slap a challenge on front of a group. That exactly why you can't rely of static DCs and standard actions. Like I said that hole in the ground is not a definitive consequence of failure until they decide that is.

A generic fighter does not make a generic check when it comes to actual gameplay. All those things we avoid for convenience it's hardly the silver bullet for declaring that the ability checks are not working. Ability check DC's are not a threshold that you place to form a challenge they're merely one mean that GM has in resolving an action.

If you can't tell me what that action is in it's totality in relationship with a given table then no I can't give you a DC or tell you that if you can potentially change. For all I know the fighters great great grandfather is the one who built the wall so maybe he has some inside or knowledge. maybe the party has enough rope to make the fighter have infinite attempts to get across. Maybe the party takes a few hours practicing on the part of the wall that isn't over the hole.

[Aimeryan]

Simpler to just reduce the DCs across the board by 5, as has been expressed. (Or, remove Expertise, keeping everything the same, and grant Rogues and Bards a 5 point bonus.

That only changes the chance of success across the board, not where the success is coming from (i.e., the d20 vs proficiency in the skill as part of the character). It also doesn't really make sense because the DM sets the DC, so if the only change was to 'reduce the DC by 5' then this is effectively like saying 'Whatever number you come up with, now take 5 away from that' - you would still be lacking actual guidance to come up with the DC in the first place. At which point, if guidance was provided you would not then need to then take away 5 from it unless you disagreed with the guidance - which would then be an index to which we can all refer in order to say 'take away 5 from it' with any meaning.

These are two different points. The DCs absolutely should have guidance (i.e., not relative terms with nothing to relate to). The flat modifier for Proficiency should not be as curtailed as it is by Expertise existing.

[Rukelnikov]

No action was taken. Trying to attempt the climb as quickly as possible is not the same as taking precautions as trying to do so as quietly as possible. There are literally countless factors that could come on play once you slap a challenge on front of a group. That exactly why you can't rely of static DCs and standard actions. Like I said that hole in the ground is not a definitive consequence of failure until they decide that is.

A generic fighter does not make a generic check when it comes to actual gameplay. All those things we avoid for convenience it's hardly the silver bullet for declaring that the ability checks are not working. Ability check DC's are not a threshold that you place to form a challenge they're merely one mean that GM has in resolving an action.

If you can't tell me what that action is in it's totality in relationship with a given table then no I can't give you a DC or tell you that if you can potentially change. For all I know the fighters great great grandfather is the one who built the wall so maybe he has some inside or knowledge. maybe the party has enough rope to make the fighter have infinite attempts to get across. Maybe the party takes a few hours practicing on the part of the wall that isn't over the hole.

In any of your scenarios the DC, whatever it ends up being should be the same for everyone, and if the fighter has something that gives him an advantage on the task then he should have advantage on the roll, and if the advantage is large enough failure doesn't seem plausible then he shouldn't roll at all, but regardless the DC should be the same for everyone if stuff like ability boni and proficiency mechanics are made to matter.

[stoutstien]

In any of your scenarios the DC, whatever it ends up being should be the same for everyone, and if the fighter has something that gives him an advantage on the task then he should have advantage on the roll, and if the advantage is large enough failure doesn't seem plausible then he shouldn't roll at all, but regardless the DC should be the same for everyone if stuff like ability boni and proficiency mechanics are made to matter.

Are you seriously arguing that the fighter makes this check and then everybody makes an identical check right afterwards rather than addressing the actual challenge on hand?

That's exactly why you want to avoid turning setting DCs into some kind of formula rather than a method. The goal is not to roll a certain number, it's the overcome the actual scenario. This means rarely, if ever, will somebody make a check that's identical to the one before it because part of the basic rules of setting ability check is the outcome will change the situation so you can't just roll again regardless if it's the same person or somebody else.

That's why your scenario didn't pass the sniff test to begin with would likely not involve a check whatsoever.

[JNAProductions]

In any of your scenarios the DC, whatever it ends up being should be the same for everyone, and if the fighter has something that gives him an advantage on the task then he should have advantage on the roll, and if the advantage is large enough failure doesn't seem plausible then he shouldn't roll at all, but regardless the DC should be the same for everyone if stuff like ability boni and proficiency mechanics are made to matter.

The Fighter rolls no check, because they’re an Owlin and fly to the top.
The rest roll no checks because the Fighter drops a rope and they climb that, with the stronger party members carrying bulkier gear.

[Rukelnikov]

Are you seriously arguing that the fighter makes this check and then everybody makes an identical check right afterwards rather than addressing the actual challenge on hand?

That's exactly why you want to avoid turning setting DCs into some kind of formula rather than a method. The goal is not to roll a certain number, it's the overcome the actual scenario. This means rarely, if ever, will somebody make a check that's identical to the one before it because part of the basic rules of setting ability check is the outcome will change the situation so you can't just roll again regardless if it's the same person or somebody else.

That's why your scenario didn't pass the sniff test to begin with would likely not involve a check whatsoever.

If the fighter does nothing to change the scenario for the other characters, then yes they all roll the exact same roll, if the fighter while going leaves pitons in place, then the other will roll a different check, but if the first one after the pitons are place does nothing to in turn change the check for the third one, then the second and the third will roll the same because they are attempting the same task.


The Fighter rolls no check, because they’re an Owlin and fly to the top.
The rest roll no checks because the Fighter drops a rope and they climb that, with the stronger party members carrying bulkier gear.

And that's working as intended, if no roll is required because failure seems implausible, then no rolls are required.

[Kane0]

Replace Expertise with 'when you roll an ability check, you can choose to roll 2d10 instead of 1d20' ?

Edit: and lower DCs so the default is 10 or 12 instead of 15

[stoutstien]

If the fighter does nothing to change the scenario for the other characters, then yes they all roll the exact same roll, if the fighter while going leaves pitons in place, then the other will roll a different check, but if the first one after the pitons are place does nothing to in turn change the check for the third one, then the second and the third will roll the same because they are attempting the same task.


No they don't because you start the process all over and nothing guarantees they even get to make a roll to begin with. The existence of a check for one doesn't automatically transfer to everyone else.

Furthermore since the fighter has successfully transversed the wall, anyone else who follows would be making a attempt with first hand knowledge readily available.

The situation has changed but the individual ability of each character has not.

[Rukelnikov]

No they don't because you start the process all over and nothing guarantees they even get to make a roll to begin with. The existence of a check for one doesn't automatically transfer to everyone else.

Furthermore since the fighter has successfully transversed the wall, anyone else who follows would be making a attempt with first hand knowledge readily available.

The situation has changed but the individual ability of each character has not.

If the fighter does something, like pointing a path to others (which is not very dissimilar to making it easier by leaving pitons) then the ones that come after will have either advantage (in the case of pointing), or a lower DC (in the case of pitons), but as I said in the previous post, which's argument your sentence doesn't contradict btw, unless anyone does anything to change the situation afterwards, they all roll the same, because its the same task.

[stoutstien]

If the fighter does something, like pointing a path to others (which is not very dissimilar to making it easier by leaving pitons) then the ones that come after will have either advantage (in the case of pointing), or a lower DC (in the case of pitons), but as I said in the previous post, which's argument your sentence doesn't contradict btw, unless anyone does anything to change the situation afterwards, they all roll the same, because its the same task.

If they are all doing the same task it would be a group check to begin with assuming the goal is to get everybody across rather than just one person.

[Dr.Samurai]

I'm not sure what the solution is to be honest. On the one hand, I want there to be a chance of failure that is meaningful. On the other hand, I also want the character to feel like they are skilled at something and can do it consistently.

[stoutstien]

I'm not sure what the solution is to be honest. On the one hand, I want there to be a chance of failure that is meaningful. On the other hand, I also want the character to feel like they are skilled at something and can do it consistently.

It's about ratio IMO. The higher the frequency of a type of roll occurs the higher the rate of failure should. On the flip side the higher the consequences are the lower the fail rate should sit at.

That's why I think it important to let the players set their own terms when it comes to how much they are willing to risk rather than using anything static. No only doesn't prevent the "reach the number" mentality you give them the rope that could save or hang them.

[Rukelnikov]

If they are all doing the same task it would be a group check to begin with assuming the goal is to get everybody across rather than just one person.

In a group check everyone is still rolling individually against a DC, so it doesn't change the situation, its still one roll per character.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

I'm not sure what the solution is to be honest. On the one hand, I want there to be a chance of failure that is meaningful. On the other hand, I also want the character to feel like they are skilled at something and can do it consistently.

Multiple DCs help here, I think. The task is DC 15 (as a pure for-example), failure means no progress is made, failure by 10 or more means some sort of consequence (falling, alienating the person, whatever), success means the task is accomplished, success by 10 or more means the party gains some additional benefit (an extra clue, the task doesn't take as long, whatever). Maybe you shade that so the DC is 10 and failure by 5 or more gets the penalty and success by 10 or more gets the bonus. Whatever! Part of the issue, IMO, is that skills are unbalanced in outcome. Look at every Climb check in a published adventure. They have three outcomes: success, fail, catastrophic fail. There's no ultra success boy you are very good at this outcome available for most ability checks, and that flattens out the difference between the sorcerer who has high enough charisma to hit a DC 10 check 75% of the time and the bard who hits a DC 20 check 75% of the time. The bard is way better at the task, but that only affects what kind of tasks they can reasonably do, not how positive the outcomes are.

[stoutstien]

In a group check everyone is still rolling individually against a DC, so it doesn't change the situation, its still one roll per character.

Not it isn't because the goal is different therefore the check itself would also change.

Say you have a party of 5 that want to climb this wall. One automatically would pass, one would automatically fail, and three would fall in the middle of they just haphazardly attempted to smash the climb button, which you shouldn't allow to begin with. Since the auto fail and pass cancel our neither would need to roll so the middle three are the only ones that need to roll.

Now if they actually PLAY the game then the results would likely be a no roll because they are endless possibilities to avoid any check working together because a ramped wall over a hole is neither interesting nor inherently involves a challenge or conflict.

Treating the dice roll as the challenge is the root issue for most tables that feel that they are both inconsistent and uninteresting. Making it a static value cranks this up to 100 Not only is it just a boring number in your way, it isn't affected by your choices.

[Theodoxus]

Replace Expertise with 'when you roll an ability check, you can choose to roll 2d10 instead of 1d20' ?

Edit: and lower DCs so the default is 10 or 12 instead of 15

Changing Expertise to simple advantage caps skills at 31 (outside of magic) and more importantly, keeps the floor the same.

Expertise being 2xPB means you can't roll less than 5 provided your attribute is at least +0 at 1st level. Expertise is less about making the hard rolls and far more about never failing the easy ones - and that aspect increases as you level; +4 at 1st, +6 at 5th, +8 at 9th... that means things that have a 50/50 for untrained become auto success for the experts, which mirrors reality fairly well. (Good enough for a game, certainly.)

Regarding DC determination, I don't see WotC ever helping in that regard. It's firmly entrenched in Rulings not Rules - more than any other aspect of the game. As such, I don't think arguing over one interpretation or another is helpful. Post your opinions, sure, but I'd stop trying to 'prove yours is more correct'. Let the readers decide who's argument has more value for their specific table if it's something they hadn't put much thought into... but any more than that is just distraction.

[stoutstien]

Replace Expertise with 'when you roll an ability check, you can choose to roll 2d10 instead of 1d20' ?

Edit: and lower DCs so the default is 10 or 12 instead of 15

Worse on the top and bottom of the possible range of DCs which is where bonuses should be the most impactful. If you tighten the range to 5-15 it could work.

dice pools can work such as in WWN because the total range is much tighter and utilizes an approach that they aren't meant to come up very often. Downfall is the GM has to realize that shifting the DC now has weird jumps and flavors the jack of all trades approach do to diminishing returns.

[Aimeryan]

Regarding DC determination, I don't see WotC ever helping in that regard. It's firmly entrenched in Rulings not Rules - more than any other aspect of the game.

This is also two different points, albeit here they are related to each other in very tangled ways. 1) What is WotC likely to do? 2) What should WotC do from a non-WotC view point?

With the first point, WotC is likely to do whatever makes them the most amount of profit. To this end, slogans and 'three words' can be quite effective at causing people to not act in their best interest. In this case, 'Rulings not Rules' is right up there on that - WotC whole job is to make rules, they don't make rulings - you do. If they make less rules, they don't make more rulings - you do. If you take this to the extreme, they would handle you a blank piece of paper, ask for $50, and laugh all the while you recite to yourself 'Rulings not Rules'. If you don't take them to account for this, they'll take you to the bank.

On the second point, and you can see how this is related, WotC should make rules. It is literally what you buy the books for. What if you don't think they are good at it? Then don't buy the books. What if you think your rulings are better than their rules? Then... don't buy the books.

Now, there is a limit here; each additional rule they add is likely to be of lower quality than the last - fatigue, existing view points being fully utilised, constrictions placed by previous rules, etc. As such, there IS a point at which the addition of more rules are likely to fall below a valuation point at which you should pay more money for - even further it might be a detraction of value due to bloat. However, it should be noted that this is subject dependent; if there are few rules on something in particular then the addition of rules there are, all other things being equal, highly likely to be of greater value than adding rules elsewhere. As such, '[less rules] than any other aspect of the game' is actually in favour of more rules, not less.

Lastly, 'Rulings not Rules' is itself a nonsensical argument - rules do not prohibit rulings. It would be like saying 'Bananas not Cars' - it makes no sense.