Do caster out of combat options matter?

[JellyPooga]

But - none of this addresses what might be my core problem. There's no agency in skill checks. It's just use the obviously best, highest check you possibly can. I guess something like the Varying Success system could address some of this? Have poorly matched skills have terrible downside risk? But again, that's just a lot of DM time to make it feel right.

This argument feels a little bit like complaining that Wizards aren't great grapplers, or that Paladins or Monks aren't great archers. Yeah, they can participate, but it's a bit of a craps shoot and their contribution, even if they succeed, pales by comparison to what they could or arguably should be doing instead. "There's no agency in [insert specific thing]. It's just use the obviously best, highest check you possibly can" is an statement that suggests your agency was in building what your character is obviously best at, because it applies to just about anything in the game.

I do suspect that a lot of players (including GMs) overlook using skills in a way that actually enhances the game, but I don't think it's because of a lack of DC's provided or because of bounded accuracy. I think it comes down to a lack of engagement with the rest of the system. Few Class or Race features actually interface with the use of skill proficiencies and those that do, usually serve to either specialise them (e.g. Expertise) or negate them (e.g. Natural Explorer). This creates a divide between the "push button, do thing" features and the "roll dice, do thing" ability checks, in which the former are usually preferred because all that's needed is to expend the resource (which is usually replenished easily and without consequence, by resting).

You already pointed out upthread one aspect of the game in which skills actually do interface remarkably well with the game and that's grappling; by making it an Athletics check, it opens up any feature or ability that enhances those to also impact the ability to move and restrain opponents. It offers Acrobatics as an alternative defence, which by extension means Dexterity comes into play as well as Strength, speed and what you can actually do with the condition. Where else in the game is a skill proficiency really tied to another aspect of play that isn't just a skill challenge? Introducing more of this kind of system integration where skill, or more accurately ability, checks play a more central role in gameplay, rather than the resource management of spell slots and rest-based class features, is how to "fix" the perception of skills and IMO the game as a whole (such as the dominance of spellcasters at high levels; a problem created by having better and more varied "I win" buttons as a resource rather than a roll).

[Rynjin]

It's something a lot of other systems do very well. Anybody who thinks they'd enjoy that kind of mechanic, I suggest you try out Mutants and Masterminds 3rd Edition. Savage Worlds has a bit of that as well, with things like your Fighting skill being directly tied to your ability to DEFEND yourself against melee attacks as well.

[Theodoxus]

I've thought of this too, but every time I've considered it in practice it becomes a massive headache. What the drawback is, what super-success is, like that's specific to not only the skill being used but even the particular context. The social skills are relatively easy to imagine in this regard, but what does it mean to "crit success" jumping over a ravine? Or sneaking? And then there's knowledge skills: now the DM has to come up with 2, 3, 4 layers of info to correspond to varying levels of success. TBC, I've done this before (esp. for knowledge checks), but it's time consuming and only easily works for some skills.

First, I'll just say I really don't like skill granularity. By which I mean, I don't like 'Jump' or 'Climb' or 'Arcana' as skills, because it limits what skills you have to the list available, and if I wanted 'Climatology' or 'Electrical Systems', it means I'm opening up the skill system to either so many choices (with fewer selections) that it becomes analysis paralysis, or at best FOMO for not picking 'the right skills' for the campaign. As such, I far more prefer attribute based checks from the DMG.

However, to address your concern in your opening paragraph, I think it requires a paradigm shift in what 'success' looks like for each skill. For instance, I'd downgrade a jump success from 'you make it over the ravine and go along your merry way' to 'you jump over the ravine, but end up prone.' A success with drawback would be 'you barely make it across, finding a shrub or tree to grab onto. It's going to take you a round to scramble up over the edge of the ravine.' A crit success becomes the new normal 'you make it over the ravine and go along your merry way'.

Stealth and any other opposed check is actually pretty easy, imo - drawback: opposed has advantage; success: opposed is normal; critical success: opposed has disadvantage. That's the mechanical side though. Describing the why of those three results might be a bit harder on the DM though...

Some things I've toyed around with (but never play tested)

1) Untrained skills have a DC cap of 8 + proficiency bonus. DC's above that cannot be attempted by someone without proficiency in that skill
2) Expertise grants a "take 10" feature; instead of rolling, the character may count the check like the rolled a 10. This cannot be used in combat or other hostile situation
3) Not really a mechanical change but a table of DC's to use as a reference is really needed. My general opinion is skills tend to be too high of a DC; someone who is trained in something should probably be succeeding at that thing like 75% of the time. The norm DC should be in the 10-12 range; higher is notably hard things to do
4) Yeah, something like total fail, partial fail, success, and total success would be nice (but see above comments)

1) I like that, if you're using the skill system as presented, there should be a mechanical advantage (not Advantage) to being trained that's more than just 'you have a slightly better chance at success than some uneducated bumpkin.'
2) As an option, or replacing the double proficiency bonus? I like options... I'm not sure I'd like it completely swapped.
3) One reason I really like the flat DC 15 for everything. Removes the need for tables of DCs and replacing it with a smaller list of drawbacks and crits ;)
4) see 3 ;)

But - none of this addresses what might be my core problem. There's no agency in skill checks. It's just use the obviously best, highest check you possibly can. I guess something like the Varying Success system could address some of this? Have poorly matched skills have terrible downside risk? But again, that's just a lot of DM time to make it feel right.

I think it also depends on how the table runs skills. If the DM is running the story and then comes to a decision point and states "you've come to a walled dead end, there's a gap at the top the party can squeeze through, roll Strength (Climb)" it definitely takes away agency, as the players more than likely won't question it, and just roll climb checks and continue on. If instead, the DM says "you've come to a walled dead end, what do you do?" Then the players might start rolling perception checks and climb checks or cast spells... less is definitely more when it comes to options and agency. I don't recall if there's anything explained that way in the DMG. I'm sure Psyren could point to the exact page number, if it exists. But it's a skill (no pun) that DMs learn over time, if they didn't learn it while playing at the feet of good master.

This argument feels a little bit like complaining that Wizards aren't great grapplers, or that Paladins or Monks aren't great archers. Yeah, they can participate, but it's a bit of a craps shoot and their contribution, even if they succeed, pales by comparison to what they could or arguably should be doing instead. "There's no agency in [insert specific thing]. It's just use the obviously best, highest check you possibly can" is an statement that suggests your agency was in building what your character is obviously best at, because it applies to just about anything in the game.

I do suspect that a lot of players (including GMs) overlook using skills in a way that actually enhances the game, but I don't think it's because of a lack of DC's provided or because of bounded accuracy. I think it comes down to a lack of engagement with the rest of the system. Few Class or Race features actually interface with the use of skill proficiencies and those that do, usually serve to either specialise them (e.g. Expertise) or negate them (e.g. Natural Explorer). This creates a divide between the "push button, do thing" features and the "roll dice, do thing" ability checks, in which the former are usually preferred because all that's needed is to expend the resource (which is usually replenished easily and without consequence, by resting).

You already pointed out upthread one aspect of the game in which skills actually do interface remarkably well with the game and that's grappling; by making it an Athletics check, it opens up any feature or ability that enhances those to also impact the ability to move and restrain opponents. It offers Acrobatics as an alternative defence, which by extension means Dexterity comes into play as well as Strength, speed and what you can actually do with the condition. Where else in the game is a skill proficiency really tied to another aspect of play that isn't just a skill challenge? Introducing more of this kind of system integration where skill, or more accurately ability, checks play a more central role in gameplay, rather than the resource management of spell slots and rest-based class features, is how to "fix" the perception of skills and IMO the game as a whole (such as the dominance of spellcasters at high levels; a problem created by having better and more varied "I win" buttons as a resource rather than a roll).

100%, it's why I'm moving away from skill checks to just blanket ability checks. "Can I make an Intelligence check to figure out how this puzzle was put together" is more engrossing than "I make an Intelligence (Investigation) check. What do I find?"

It's something a lot of other systems do very well. Anybody who thinks they'd enjoy that kind of mechanic, I suggest you try out Mutants and Masterminds 3rd Edition. Savage Worlds has a bit of that as well, with things like your Fighting skill being directly tied to your ability to DEFEND yourself against melee attacks as well.

The only pushback I have on this suggestion is that the community (at least in my neck of the woods) that engage in anything other than D&D is trifling small... I think it's why there's such a vibrant D&D modding community - when everyone knows the base rules of the game, it's easier to bring in ideas from other games, instead of trying to change what game people are actually playing. I wish there was a more robust gaming culture I could connect with... but it's really 5E + homebrew, or nothing.

[Vahnavoi]

@skrum: to me it seems obvious why you don't get branching scenarios or sense of agency that way. You're focusing on the wrong thing. You've set rolling a number of dice as the objective, when you should instead pay attention to what each die roll represents.

Consider, again, Veins of Earth. Getting from cave A to cave B technically requires X successes before Y failures - but each roll, and hence each success and failure, means a distinct move through the cave system. Furthermore, there may be more than one route from A to B. Agency stems from those paths not being equal to one another. One route might go down through the floor - possible to do with a jump in one direction, but coming back up requires setting up ropes etc.. A second route might be a long crawl to cave C and then back to B - slow and difficult, but largely the same going in and out.

Importantly, all routes might use the same skills. It's the difficulty, costs and pay-offs that change. For example, on one hand nobody's taking fall damage going through the crawl, succeed or fail, but on the other, nobody's getting stuck in the middle of a tunnel, blocking everyone else, when jumping down the hole or climbing up the rope.

This is what's missing from your analysis. You noted it's not much of a choice, persuading a guard versus jumping over a ravine, if your social skills suck and your athletics skills rule. I'd say, yeah, if your modifiers are that far from one another, you clearly made a strategic choice earlier (when building your character) to not do much talking but do a lot of jumping. You don't feel a lot of agency in the moment, because your earlier choice dictates your later one. But what about other uses of the athletics skill? Why'd you jump over the ravine, where failure means falling into water, versus jumping over the tollgate, where failure means you get caught in the act? Your modifier for the check is the same either way, but the odds of success and the price of failure might not be.

Compare and contrast with combat. You might use the same weapon and attack bonus throughout a fight, but have multiple available targets. Hence possibility of mutually exclusive payoffs for two different checks that both use the same die and modifier.

[Rynjin]

The only pushback I have on this suggestion is that the community (at least in my neck of the woods) that engage in anything other than D&D is trifling small... I think it's why there's such a vibrant D&D modding community - when everyone knows the base rules of the game, it's easier to bring in ideas from other games, instead of trying to change what game people are actually playing. I wish there was a more robust gaming culture I could connect with... but it's really 5E + homebrew, or nothing.

This is why you need to get yourself a consistent core group of players. When you're not playing PUGs people are willing to give anything a try as long as you're running it. =)

I'd say that also goes for a wider community, to a lesser extent. If you've got a couple dozen people that frequent your FLGS, chance are you can find 2-4 brave souls willing to try anything...again, as long as you're willing to run it.

[Skrum]

This argument feels a little bit like complaining that Wizards aren't great grapplers, or that Paladins or Monks aren't great archers. Yeah, they can participate, but it's a bit of a craps shoot and their contribution, even if they succeed, pales by comparison to what they could or arguably should be doing instead. "There's no agency in [insert specific thing]. It's just use the obviously best, highest check you possibly can" is an statement that suggests your agency was in building what your character is obviously best at, because it applies to just about anything in the game.

Build choices are a choice, sure. My point though is that skills themselves have no particular choice involved. It's just "roll this check." Even one-note classes are faced with an array of decisions each turn. Skills are literally d20, pass, fail.

Do I think elaborate skill-based scenarios sound awesome? Yes! Do I think that if I were to use them, I'd have to make them up (well, take inspiration from other games and then convert it into 5e)? Big yes! And that, among other reasons, is why I criticize 5e's skill "system." It's not a system at all. There's almost nothing there, and what is there is just the player hoping that their build choices match up with what the DM is asking for.

I do suspect that a lot of players (including GMs) overlook using skills in a way that actually enhances the game, but I don't think it's because of a lack of DC's provided or because of bounded accuracy. I think it comes down to a lack of engagement with the rest of the system. Few Class or Race features actually interface with the use of skill proficiencies and those that do, usually serve to either specialise them (e.g. Expertise) or negate them (e.g. Natural Explorer). This creates a divide between the "push button, do thing" features and the "roll dice, do thing" ability checks, in which the former are usually preferred because all that's needed is to expend the resource (which is usually replenished easily and without consequence, by resting).

I agree with this. Many of background abilities are awful in that regard. They remove a lot of potential for tension and drama.

You already pointed out upthread one aspect of the game in which skills actually do interface remarkably well with the game and that's grappling; by making it an Athletics check, it opens up any feature or ability that enhances those to also impact the ability to move and restrain opponents. It offers Acrobatics as an alternative defence, which by extension means Dexterity comes into play as well as Strength, speed and what you can actually do with the condition. Where else in the game is a skill proficiency really tied to another aspect of play that isn't just a skill challenge? Introducing more of this kind of system integration where skill, or more accurately ability, checks play a more central role in gameplay, rather than the resource management of spell slots and rest-based class features, is how to "fix" the perception of skills and IMO the game as a whole (such as the dominance of spellcasters at high levels; a problem created by having better and more varied "I win" buttons as a resource rather than a roll).

Also agree! I should've added this to my list of things to do with skills....dig up Complete Scoundrel from 3.5e and move as many of the skills tricks as possible into 5e. Give skills explicit uses. Say how hard it is to do that thing. Etc.

[sambojin]

I tend to look at it from the other side. Does it matter that as a lvl2 Firbolg Moon Druid, that I get *all* the low-end out of combat options? At lvl2?

Movement? Yep, got spiderclimb, fast movement, jumping, familiars. Ride-able forms too, so it's a party thing if needed.

Survival? Yep, got goodberry and can have create water. Also have pretty good Wis and scouting/ senses and familiars.

Stealth? Yep, got stealth forms, super-disguise self, a touch of invis, and can go tiny. Later on get pass without trace.

Strength? Yep, got double carry capacity and wildshape. And probably Athletics. Get an 18Str summon soon too.

Communication? A bit, got auto speak to animals, can have proper speak with animals, and there's nothing saying I can't have decent Charisma and a talky skill. Or just take Insight for anti-liar, which still helps heaps.

Skills? Yep, got guidance, for me or the party, and later on Enhance Ability. Plus all the other stuff and stat independence.


And none of this really effects my combat performance at all. Later on I get boat loads of fly/ swim/ summons, and can know planar travel on any given day. Even get commune with nature, that has a pretty amazing range for trying to find portals, and is an 11min ritual.

How often does this come up in any given adventure? Well, all the time. Could we have found different ways of doing things, or simply done something else entirely, without a druid in the party? Yes, definitely. But boy did I feel good being able to do all these things whenever I wanted. Probably saved a few party resources or time by doing it my way, even if it used a small amount of my own resources to do so.

So, do out of combat things matter? Yes. Especially to the person doing them, or allowing the party to try different approaches to various situations. Are they strictly necessary? Yes. DnD is a pretty crappy combat sim, so without all the other cool stuff and shenanigans we get up to in between combat encounters, I doubt I'd bother playing at all. Half the reason why I like playing Druids is because you get more/ different things to do in combat with wildshape/ constellations/ spells, than even a high level martial ever could, even if my dpr isn't fantastic. It would be boring otherwise. But most of it is because of the out of combat stuff.

((A lot of it comes down to "Does the campaign have fail states?". More than simply a TPK. What happens if you don't stop the BBEG? Because you're meant to succeed, and there's meant to be plenty of ways of doing so, but you have to be able to fail and that to have consequences as well. That's the mark of a good campaign. If you can't win, why bother playing? But if you can't lose, why bother either? And there can be varying degrees of either one. Saved the princess, but the king died and the portal to the hells got opened? Well, you won, kinda in a heroic'y sorta way, but there's still going to be large consequences, even if it's not a fail state persay))

[Vogie]

Getting into this thread super late, but I'm surprised in the direction it took. Handwringing over access to the Plane of Fire and pointing at video game design decisions are just... odd to me.

There is a layer of this discussion that is missing a chunk of the problem - that this is a game based on decision making, and everything is made up. Yes, if you need to travel planes for the story, you'll have access to that because it makes the story work. But there's a tradeoff there. It would be a very different story if Frodo was told to destroy the ring by throwing it into Mt. Doom, who said "I don't know the way" and the response from the elves was pointing to a nearby staircase and saying "go that way, second door on the right" and he could just skip over to their Doom portal and chuck it in.

Out of combat options matter for casters because it limits their combat options - they have to make decisions on how much utility vs how much combat effectiveness they can have access to at any given moment. If a group of player sit down to start a campaign, and one person decides to go all-in about riding horses and jousting their enemies to death, that's a decision that can be made. At the same moment, if the DM knows they're going to be trudging through muck and squeezing through caves for the campaign, they really should let that player know that the thing they want to do won't particularly work for the game they're playing - not because it's an "incorrect" decision, but that those decisions won't help in this specific circumstance. Not telling them would be setting them up to feel the exact opposite of optimized.

Out of combat or utility options matter just as much for noncasters as well. Sneaking through an old prison if you have a rogue who can stealth through and pick locks is a very different game than going through the same old prison with only fighters and clerics wearing heavy armor - there's not much sneaking with all that chain and plate and, since they can't pick locks, they have to loudly smash their way through those obstacles. They can still make their way through, but the world will just react to them differently because they're interacting with the world differently.

But ultimately, each game is made up. At each table, the DM is making a game that interacts with the characters. I'm currently running Princes of the Apocalypse for my PF2e group, and one player (even though they knew what they were getting into) decided they were going to make their wizard's schtick that necromancy was their all-in. Normally, that'd be a terrible idea - PotA is essentially "Avatar the Last Airbender, but they're all evil" as a campaign. However, I just ran with it - I was already worried about how same-y the encounters would be, so I just dramatically upped the amount of Undead. The tiny sidequest about the crazed necromancer the "Lord of Lance Rock" in the book got expanded into a crazed necromancer that was supplying the 4 elemental cults with undead shock troops. Everyone is happy, and the only one who knows the difference is that one player who insisted on reading every published adventure for fun.

There's a certain strategy that I ascribe to as a DM that I've heard called "Shoot your monks". In 5e, all monks get the Deflect missiles feature at level 3, and in most games I've played or consumed an actual play of, rarely comes up. The "Shoot your monks" philosophy means that, if you've got a monk of the appropriate level, you need to add NPCs occasionally to encounters for the express purpose of shooting those monks, giving them the chance to deflect the missiles, and feel awesome. If you've got someone who can speak to animals, you should include more animals for that PC to shine when they defuse a situation or gain some information. If you have player characters with scouting potential, like invisible familiars, arcane eyes or wild shapes, give them the chance to use those abilities - they don't need to be able to scout everything forever (that's why there are doors in a dungeon, after all), but being able to ambush a group that would be ambushing them if the party haven't scouted it out.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

I feel like the problem in the opening post is mainly a problem with certain high level spells, and doesn't come up as much at lower levels

In our campaign we came upon a huge wall of thorny roses. That's not an obstacle the DM could only use when the party have spell X. You can defeat it by casting fly on the strongest character and have them fly everyone else over, or you can try burning a hole through it with fore spells, or you can tunnel under it with Mold Earth. A burrowing or flying wild shape form could work too, you could even Conjure Animals burrowing or flying creatures. This is an obstacle that will basically work in any game, even an all magicless martials party should eventually be able to get through it, even if it might not be pretty. They might be able to climb a tree near the hedge and lasso a tree on the other side so they can rope over it. (With the right knots they can even recover their rope.) Or maybe they can chop a tree near the hedge down and drop it on the roses, see what that does.

Is it a hard obstacle? No, not really, precisely because there are so many options. But if you want it to be harder combine it with other stuff. Maybe have some flying enemies that stay hidden behind the thorny wall and only attack those going to the other side. Fly-carrying is now pretty bad. You could have the rose wall appear inexplicably in a cave, where any flying solution won't work. Maybe have them be chased by something big, the rose wall might be this world's version of the Jurassic Park fences. Now burrowing is harder because of the time pressure, someone needs to distract the monster while the digging happens. Burning through the hedge is also much less inviting now, that might just let the monster out.

I agree it gets a lot harder to design good scenario's as the magic gets more powerful. How do you design a scenario where planeshift is part of some solutions, but isn't the one and only solution? I mean, technically I guess you could planeshift around a wall of thorns, shift ones, walk 100 meters, shift back. But that just feels like a silly excuse to use your powerspell. (Also: it doesn't actually work exactly like that with the spell as written, but you can just try to skip much of your journey and shift back to near your destination.) But that's a problem with certain powerful spells, not really with utility magic in general.

[Segev]

plane shift will tend to be most useful to the players when they are driving the game's plot, rather than responding to it. This is just a game style difference.

[KorvinStarmast]

Back to ritual casting:

Barbarian, Totem, 10th, commune with nature. (And speak with animals at 3rd). useful out of combat or intel gathering.

Ritual spells I have used with some frequency out of combat with my Pact of the Tome ritual spells which I have been slowly but surely collecting (we are now level 12).

Alarm, and Alarm + Magic Mouth (In tandem, great way to weak up the party if the PC on watch gets charmed or held)
Rary's Telepathic Bond: as a ritual, I enable an hour's worth of telepathic communication. We can split the party sometimes.
Skywrite: advertise for the bard's performances. Start rumors or commit simple libel/slander against various people in an area whom we dislike.
Water Breathing: nuff said.
Detect Magic and Identify: as rituals, helpful.

Leomunds Tiny Hut: as a ritual ... camping out becomes less stressful.

Other bits:

Paladin/Cleric: Ceremony: a variety of useful outcomes.
Bard: Song of rest: a little boost to short rest healing.

Wizard: Transmutation - the transmuter's stone has various features. It gave our human assassin dark vision ...at 14th level the wizard now can cast raise dead once per long rest ...

[Amechra]

[...] I do suspect that a lot of players (including GMs) overlook using skills in a way that actually enhances the game, but I don't think it's because of a lack of DC's provided or because of bounded accuracy. I think it comes down to a lack of engagement with the rest of the system. [...]

Yeah, arguably one of the biggest flaws with how 5e handles skills is that there isn't even really advice on how to have them interact with the parts of the system that deal with very specific hard numbers (HP, movement speed, ranges, weight, etc). If I cast the Jump spell I know that I triple my jumping distance for the duration. If I roll a Strength (Athletics) check I... well, the only thing the system says to the DM is that it should let me jump further, so there's not much there to work with. Or you have stuff like the Medicine skill, which has nothing to do with your character having useful first aid skills unless your DM is willing to do a bunch of homebrewing more-or-less from scratch.

...

Another flaw? People hate ability checks because they're hilariously unreliable thanks to the d20 being so dang swingy. If your DM asks for a bunch of Medium checks ("because that doesn't sound that bad, right?"), you need a +6 bonus to the relevant skill (or a stack of buffs) for your chances of success to be better than a coinflip. If you want to be as reliable at hitting Medium checks as you are with attack rolls, you're looking at skill bonuses that are locked behind a ton of character building prereqs. And that's Medium checks.

And, yes, the players do get tools to manipulate probability in their favor... but if my max-skill-bonus-in-Tier-1 (+9, from having a +5 stat and Expertise) character who is getting Help *and* divine Guidance still has a ~15% chance of failing a Hard check, maybe the DC table's a little broken...

[Rukelnikov]

Yeah, arguably one of the biggest flaws with how 5e handles skills is that there isn't even really advice on how to have them interact with the parts of the system that deal with very specific hard numbers (HP, movement speed, ranges, weight, etc). If I cast the Jump spell I know that I triple my jumping distance for the duration. If I roll a Strength (Athletics) check I... well, the only thing the system says to the DM is that it should let me jump further, so there's not much there to work with. Or you have stuff like the Medicine skill, which has nothing to do with your character having useful first aid skills unless your DM is willing to do a bunch of homebrewing more-or-less from scratch.

...

Another flaw? People hate ability checks because they're hilariously unreliable thanks to the d20 being so dang swingy. If your DM asks for a bunch of Medium checks ("because that doesn't sound that bad, right?"), you need a +6 bonus to the relevant skill (or a stack of buffs) for your chances of success to be better than a coinflip. If you want to be as reliable at hitting Medium checks as you are with attack rolls, you're looking at skill bonuses that are locked behind a ton of character building prereqs. And that's Medium checks.

And, yes, the players do get tools to manipulate probability in their favor... but if my max-skill-bonus-in-Tier-1 (+9, from having a +5 stat and Expertise) character who is getting Help *and* divine Guidance still has a ~15% chance of failing a Hard check, maybe the DC table's a little broken...

I agree with this, but even if that was changed in favor of more reliability for skills (before T3), that still wouldn't help much closing the gap by T3, unless WotC is willing to bring back something akin to 3e epic/divine skills, where at a certain point skills go beyond mundane and into broader "concept of the skill" level stuff, your insight is so good, you realize what someone says is a lie even when they believe it to be true, and stuff like that.

[JellyPooga]

Another flaw? People hate ability checks because they're hilariously unreliable thanks to the d20 being so dang swingy.

I think there's maybe a bit of player expectation bias at fault here as well. It very much must be considered that so long as it's at all possible for your character and without time or risk pressure, no dice are required. You should really only be rolling dice for when the circumstances are, well, dicey and that brings up the question of what those difficulty DCs are relative to. "Medium" difficulty might not sound linguistically that challenging, but it actually means "For a proficient character of low level, it's basically a coin flip whether you can nail this in one" and that's actually a pretty high bar.

When you recalibrate the expectation based on both this and the auto-pass rule, the skill system, at least for me, makes a little more sense. DC:25 is only Very Hard (in my book) for someone with a +10 modifier (i.e. a natural 15 on the dice). For anyone with less than a +5 mod, it's Actually Impossible; it requires proficiency or peak physical or mental capacity (Ability Score 20) to even be possible, let alone to achieve it "in the moment" of a combat or other critical scenario.

Add to that the consideration that, outside of Expertise or magic, modifiers of +10 or more are strictly the purview of Tier 3+ play, it should inform prospective players on what the game expects of the different levels of challenge. For further reinforcement, a level 20 Wizard with peak Intelligence "only" has a spell save DC of 19.

[Dr.Samurai]

Another flaw? People hate ability checks because they're hilariously unreliable thanks to the d20 being so dang swingy. If your DM asks for a bunch of Medium checks ("because that doesn't sound that bad, right?"), you need a +6 bonus to the relevant skill (or a stack of buffs) for your chances of success to be better than a coinflip. If you want to be as reliable at hitting Medium checks as you are with attack rolls, you're looking at skill bonuses that are locked behind a ton of character building prereqs. And that's Medium checks.

And, yes, the players do get tools to manipulate probability in their favor... but if my max-skill-bonus-in-Tier-1 (+9, from having a +5 stat and Expertise) character who is getting Help *and* divine Guidance still has a ~15% chance of failing a Hard check, maybe the DC table's a little broken...

The dice are swingy as hell.

My barbarian, who is raging and has Advantage on his Athletics check, just failed to climb a tree at DC 13 with his +7 modifier.

[stoutstien]

The dice are swingy as hell.

My barbarian, who is raging and has Advantage on his Athletics check, just failed to climb a tree at DC 13 with his +7 modifier.

Prime example of when not to roll if the outcome is going to lead to nonsense.

Only time I could see calling for a check for a barbarian here is if they were over encumbered or doing so with no hands.

[Darth Credence]

Prime example of when not to roll if the outcome is going to lead to nonsense.

Only time I could see calling for a check for a barbarian here is if they were over encumbered or doing so with no hands.

At first I read that as over-encumbered and with no hands, and I thought I'd probably give disadvantage on that.

[stoutstien]

At first I read that as over-encumbered and with no hands, and I thought I'd probably give disadvantage on that.

Lol.

Though that's a good example of letting the players push their own luck. Either drop something or risk the roll. Throwing DCs at players is both boring and is why there is a play culture focused on either avoid the roll or pushing the math off the die.

[Dr.Samurai]

Prime example of when not to roll if the outcome is going to lead to nonsense.

Only time I could see calling for a check for a barbarian here is if they were over encumbered or doing so with no hands.

In fairness, he does have a shield equipped on one hand, and is surrounded by ravenous wolves, and has triggered his Relentless Endurance lol.

If there was any time for the dice not to betray me...

[Skrum]

Prime example of when not to roll if the outcome is going to lead to nonsense.

Only time I could see calling for a check for a barbarian here is if they were over encumbered or doing so with no hands.

On this subject, I'm in the process of writing a skill guide for DMs. It's mostly about how to set DCs - and my main position is most DCs should be pretty low. Like under 10. A +7 on a skill is extremely high relatively to the average person (for context, the PHB defines the average person to have 10 in each stat and no skill proficiencies). Is the average person pretty unlikely to climb a tree? That doesn't add up to me.

DC 8 or 9 seems much more appropriate, if the tree was not a good climbing tree. The average person might be able to climb it. Someone with +7 athletics? I should be damn near automatic.

[JellyPooga]

On this subject, I'm in the process of writing a skill guide for DMs. It's mostly about how to set DCs - and my main position is most DCs should be pretty low. Like under 10. A +7 on a skill is extremely high relatively to the average person (for context, the PHB defines the average person to have 10 in each stat and no skill proficiencies). Is the average person pretty unlikely to climb a tree? That doesn't add up to me.

DC 8 or 9 seems much more appropriate, if the tree was not a good climbing tree. The average person might be able to climb it. Someone with +7 athletics? I should be damn near automatic.

I totally agree and the DMG kind of backs you up here. There's really only a handful of DC's given in the book, but barring Purple Worm Poison's Save DC of 19, few (if any) DC's given for traps etc. go above 15. I think it might be a holdover from 3e that has people setting DC's of 15+ as a matter of course, but 5e really doesn't support that magnitude. DC:15 is a Medium difficulty for a task that's already been determined is a challenge. That's the baseline. Even an Easy DC of 10 or Very Easy DC of 5 comes with the assumption that there is a possibility of actually failing. If there's no risk involved, you simply don't roll dice at all.

It's also worth noting that there's no automatic fail state for ability checks; a 1 is just a low number. As your modifier to the check increases, so does the kind of challenges that you automatically pass and that's also part of the heroic nature of Player Characters and their adversaries; that they can routinely pull off tasks, often without fail, that other, untrained regular folk find challenging or even impossible.