Thieves tools are generally not required RAW, they just allow you to use your proficiency bonus (assuming you are proficient). You could do the same with a straight SOH check.
D&D 5E Calibration of single character skill checks
- Thread starter Blue
- Start date
Scott Christian
Hero
The DC should always be based on the actual difficulty. It should have nothing to do with the characters. That is how, after trial and error, I have built things. Sometimes it makes for interesting backstory, like a locked box that is impenetrable, and other times it makes easy work for the PC. It definitely feels more natural.
Composer99
Hero
I can confirm that @ECMO3's reading of the rule in the first sentence is correct, having checked the PHB since my last post. The PHB puts picking a lock in the activities explicitly not included under Sleight of Hand, though, so IMO proficiency with that skill wouldn't apply (though as usual, DM's table, DM's rule).
The remark about changing the DC based on using a different tool is I think where we diverge, and I think it has to do with how we are seeing the situation play out in the fiction. IMO, if you are trying to pick the lock, that is a single task or undertaking, with the same DC for that lock no matter what method you use to pick the lock. The difference between using specialised tools versus a knife or a hair pin would be the difference between getting to add your proficiency bonus or not, just as other circumstances extrinsic to the lock itself but that bear upon your attempt (whether relating to the approach you take or not) might cause you to make the check with advantage or disadvantage.
From your text, it strikes me that you view the different approaches to picking the lock to be different tasks, thus justifying the different DCs. Is that a fair reading?
pming
Legend
Hiya!
I'm also going with...
"None of the above".
If this was to be written down, I'd tie the "Average DC's" directly to the method for rolling/determining character stats.
3d6 in Order : "Average DC 8"
4d6k3: "Average DC 10"
Stat Array: "Average DC 12"
...etc...
Because Skill checks are based on Stat Mod + Proficiency (for the vast majority). Having an "Average DC 15" makes no sense if everyone is using old school hard-core mode of 3d6 for stats. But DC 8 for 4d6k3 with a minimum stat of 9 also makes no sense.
^_^
Paul L. Ming
I'm also going with...
"None of the above".
If this was to be written down, I'd tie the "Average DC's" directly to the method for rolling/determining character stats.
3d6 in Order : "Average DC 8"
4d6k3: "Average DC 10"
Stat Array: "Average DC 12"
...etc...
Because Skill checks are based on Stat Mod + Proficiency (for the vast majority). Having an "Average DC 15" makes no sense if everyone is using old school hard-core mode of 3d6 for stats. But DC 8 for 4d6k3 with a minimum stat of 9 also makes no sense.
^_^
Paul L. Ming
clearstream
(He, Him)
That's an interesting case. I believe a the rules and guidelines offer a few options here
- Thieves' tools let you add your proficiency to your check to pick a lock, so one option is you can't add your proficiency - DC is unchanged
- Makeshift tools might additionally impose disadvantage - DC is unchanged
- It's really a different task - you're not picking the lock but breaking it open - different DC as it is a different task
I didn't introduce that term: @Charlaquin did in post #61. So I haven't shifted from tying the DC strictly to an obstacle. I have always, and only, tied the DC strictly to a task. If the point of disagreement was around 'obstacle', then perhaps we've unknowingly always been in agreement?
This was something I hoped we would get to. Ability checks are sometimes used to gauge outcomes - such as how far you jump. So far as I can make out the meaning of the rules (and here there are known gaps in the design) with a run up, a character jumps at least their strength in feet + some amount extra based on their roll. From clues in various places, it appears right to say that the amount extra is roll/2 feet.
What I find interesting is that this is a different class of ability ability check, and not one that uses a DC at all, really, but rather one that uses the roll to gauge a degree of success. Consider - with a slightly modified example - two tier-1 characters are in a long jump contest at a fair. They both just want to jump as far as possible and it happens that some ridiculously large bets have been made on the outcome, where the difference between the jumps (the gap between them) matters to the wagers. Here we don't have a simple contest, because we must know the gap between the jumps. Both roll -
- Cecil's roll is 14+3+2 = 16+9.5 = 25.5 feet
- Algernon's roll is 9+3+2 = 16+7 = 23 feet
- The gap is 2.5 feet and payouts are made accordingly
It's a bit of a miss by the designers to have failed to make it clearer, but hidden within the ability check design are three classes of checks
- Tasks - the task has a DC, you just need to beat it
- Gauges - there's not really a succeed or fail - you always jump at least some feet - but the roll gives you the measure of what you accomplished
- Standing results - the check sets a kind of defense-value or standing threshold for others to compare with, the most common example being Stealth - you don't really succeed or fail at Stealth (consider, your check is 12, guard A has passive Perc 9, guard B has passive Perc 13, did you stealth successfully? well, you both succeeded and failed... and situations arise where that matters); passives are possibly a subclass of standing results - one you don't roll for
Certainly I can do you that service. @Swarmkeeper you have it wrong - what the heck are you thinking?
Last edited:
Swarmkeeper
Hero
To be clear, the PHB (page 177) says "The DM might call for a Dexterity check when you try to accomplish tasks like the following:" - one of which is "Pick a Lock". I do agree, based on the description of Thieves' Tools, that Thieves' Tools are the only things to grant the use of proficiency for doing lock picking. I wasn't arguing against that, but I hadn't made that clear before - sorry.
Yes - but I think you and @clearstream have changed my mind on this particular example. I mean, one could argue that the approach is different with different tools, albeit slightly, and a different DC is warranted. However, in this particular case, I think the lack of proficiency, and possibly imposing disadvantage, while keeping the same DC is a better adjudication. Thanks!
Swarmkeeper
Hero
Agreed on all of this. The approach (pick the lock) in the Thieves' Tools vs makeshift picks example really hasn't changed. But my mind has - thanks!
Ah, a misinterpretation of your position on my part then. Sorry. But maybe useful for those following along? In any case, cool.
I didn't pick up on those clues. Can you point them out?
This is covered under the rules for Contests (PHB p174). I would simplify it by making it a straight up Strength opposed roll, with Athletics proficiency applying if a PC has it. Cecil still jumps further and less maths. Win-win!
I would argue #2 is covered well enough by Contests. The ultimate measure or result being narratively assigned without having to fiddle with extra math. That's the 5e "easy" way.
Number 3 can be thought of another way. The PC is trying to sneak past the guards, but one of them notices. The PC really needed to beat a 13 to make it unnoticed. So they failed. However, there's some additional nuance here where, if the guards leap into action to start combat, Guard A would be surprised while Guard B would not.
LOL. Thinking sometimes gets me in trouble. Do or do not. Right?Certainly I can do you that service. @Swarmkeeper you have it wrong - what the heck are you thinking?
AtomicPope
Hero
I placed one vote in "Natural" and one in "Talented", because that's literally how I run my games. At lower levels, assume "Natural". At higher levels you have to assume "Talented" otherwise you're engaging in a worthless dice rolling exercise. High level characters have so many additional factors to that single d20 that's they're regularly hitting DC18+ on skills that aren't their best. So we have to consider the purpose of the skill check. Why are we making the players roll dice? If it's a big deal then the PCs should be leaning on Talented characters. If it's something minor then we're looking at Natural characters. As a DM, I see this as a means for the PCs to explore the world.
I use skill checks to engage the PCs with the narrative, that is from a point of strength or weakness. When the whole party is sneaking often I'll only make the loudest character roll a Stealth check. Sometimes the players need to be reminded that their PCs are not experts at everything and that's a very easy way to do it. It lets us tell the story from a point of view that we often don't hear at the table but should. Not to punish anyone but to remind them of the roles they chose. There's no need to shotgun blast every skill encounter with an entire party's worth of d20's.
I use skill checks to engage the PCs with the narrative, that is from a point of strength or weakness. When the whole party is sneaking often I'll only make the loudest character roll a Stealth check. Sometimes the players need to be reminded that their PCs are not experts at everything and that's a very easy way to do it. It lets us tell the story from a point of view that we often don't hear at the table but should. Not to punish anyone but to remind them of the roles they chose. There's no need to shotgun blast every skill encounter with an entire party's worth of d20's.
clearstream
(He, Him)
I may need to a follow up post (am at work, sadly.) The baseline is strength in feet (spelled out under special kinds of movement in the adventuring section of the PHB. In the section on ability checks, it then describes that Strength (Athletics) can be used to jump further than your 'normal distance'. Seeing as normal distance is strength in feet, that must mean further than strength in feet. But how much by?
I found an example somewhere in official material that gives a formula in the context of a jump with/without a standing start. From memory, I think it frames it as increasing the DC by 2 for each foot it is over your basic distance with, and by 4 without. I'd like to find the reference again and confirm that though.
Remember that in my example, we need to know how much by, because that impacts on the pay outs. How many feet did Cecil win by?
So the question (to my mind) isn't what we rolled. In the example, that is intended to be Strength (Athletics) as you have it, albeit remembering that for a jump, we should retain that the contestants jump at least their Strength in feet. So that if Cecil were Strength 7, and Algernon Strength 17, that should matter more than the swing in modifiers alone might suggest.
In the guidance on stealth, the player rolls before encountering any guards. They get a 12. Did they succeed?
That's why I dub it a standing result. I believe it is sufficiently distinct from making a check to perform a single concrete task. Passive perception is similar. Say mine is 11. Did I succeed?
It's honestly pleasant to be able to chew over possible interpretations without umbrage.
Swarmkeeper
Hero
Right, right. So you apply a conversion factor to the difference. STR/2 is fine whether it is official or not - but I am curious when you have the chance to confirm...
If the PC is trying to slink past the guards, they would likely be asked to roll Dexterity(Stealth). If the player rolls a 12 but one guard has a Passive Wisdom(Perception) of 13 then the PC did not succeed in their goal of slinking past the guards.
If the opposed check was 11 or lower, yes. Or, if the Noticing the Thing was a DC of 11 or lower, yes.
Agreed. Dolores is a most disagreeable Professor.
Similar Threads
