D&D 5E Some thoughts on skills.

[ph0rk]

Isn't that what DM judgement is for??

If we keep falling back on DM judgement, we don't need rules in the first place - the DM can just free-from everything by fiat.

I would not want to play in that system or game, unless the DM was cult-leader levels of charismatic, perhaps.

The entire point of a pre-packaged game system is so the DM does not have to adjudicate nearly everything in-game. The more the system shuffles that load on the DM the easier that system is to learn for the players (as they aren't really learning much) but the harder it is to run for the DMs and the even greater variability in play there will be from table to table. There will always be some, but 5e is so loose things like the availability of advantage in combat vary widely (as does the length of the adventuring day and frequency of rests). That coupled with DC creep for checks means you'd have to play most of a campaign with a particular DM to finally understand how the system actually works when they are running it.

That is not good system design. It is pretty far from it, I'd argue.

 

[iserith]

No I fully agree with @EzekielRaiden. I didn't respond to your full throated endorsement of Calvin Ball and the meme I referenced as the solution for any sort of disagreement because he had already done so... Please don't use me as an excuse to avoid the problem your answer creates for discussion, I'd very much like to see an answer to the question he raised.

Nothing about my practical answer creates problems for discussion. You are free to do as you will.

I wonder why Anti-DM-Help is so vocal in online discussions but DM help makes money on TikTok and YT.

Because nobody reads the DMG.

 

[Minigiant]

Because nobody reads the DMG

The answer is not in the DMG. That's the point.

No one talks about this outside of YT, Twitch, and other video formats. The community more or less shuns actual DMing advice.

 

[ph0rk]

A best practices DM guide would be a good thing - that should really all be in the DMG (and leave it as suggestions, for people that still want the books to leave it all open).

But if it isn’t, it should be another (free) document. Possibly as an appendix to the basic rules document.

 

[iserith]

The answer is not in the DMG. That's the point.

No one talks about this outside of YT, Twitch, and other video formats. The community more or less shuns actual DMing advice.

Speaking for myself, I've been helping DMs and players in forums for almost 20 years. But what it looks like to me is some people's thinking about D&D 5e is heavily influenced by D&D 3.Xe or D&D 4e whose skills systems and process of play (where skills were concerned) were quite different than D&D 5e's. A comprehensive lists of tasks with corresponding DCs is simply unnecessary in a game where the DM need only choose between 3 numbers (10, 15, or 20) for the entirety of game play. And those three numbers and advice on which level characters might be able to hit those numbers are in the DMG and adequate in my view. The comprehensive list of DCs on how to tie different knots or whatever is more at home in previous versions of the game. Further, skills are an add-on here, not something that is necessary for characters to do things since it's the ability check that comes first. Unlike in previous versions where the skill was the thing and ability checks less common.

 

[Minigiant]

Speaking for myself, I've been helping DMs and players in forums for almost 20 years. But what it looks like to me is some people's thinking about D&D 5e is heavily influenced by D&D 3.Xe or D&D 4e whose skills systems and process of play (where skills were concerned) were quite different than D&D 5e's. A comprehensive lists of tasks with corresponding DCs is simply unnecessary in a game where the DM need only choose between 3 numbers (10, 15, or 20) for the entirety of game play. And those three numbers and advice on which level characters might be able to hit those numbers are in the DMG and adequate in my view. The comprehensive list of DCs on how to tie different knots or whatever is more at home in previous versions of the game. Further, skills are an add-on here, not something that is necessary for characters to do things since it's the ability check that comes first. Unlike in previous versions where the skill was the thing.

I don't think the solution nor suggestion is to use a preset set of DC. That's not what I'm suggesting.

I am suggesting to inform DMs of how their adjudications affect gameplay

 

[iserith]

I don't think the solution nor suggestion is to use a preset set of DC. That's not what I'm suggesting.

I am suggesting to inform DMs of how their adjudications affect gameplay

See DMG page 236, "The Role of Dice." It breaks down different approaches to calling for ability checks and how that affects gameplay. See also the entire subsequent section on "Using Ability Scores."

 

[Vaalingrade]

I was responding to a poster who, to my recollection, was saying they wanted a more comprehensive list of tasks and DCs so they can use it when a DM might otherwise be rather arbitrary and inconsistent in their rulings. But the DM has never had to follow any of those lists, even when they existed in previous editions, so in the end it all comes down to just working it out with the DM or walking away. WotC's musings on DCs for climbing a brick wall versus a stucco one isn't going to be much help in my view.

Maybe at least give DMs the option to not be inconsistent and arbitrary?

I know that's a lot of people's preference, but why mandate it and teach new DMs to only be that way?

 

[iserith]

Maybe at least give DMs the option to not be inconsistent and arbitrary?

I know that's a lot of people's preference, but why mandate it and teach new DMs to only be that way?

I think you have a lot of work to do to show that choosing between 3 whole DCs for all of gameplay is inherently inconsistent and arbitrary or that the adequate instruction in the DMG pushes DMs to this result. I don't think anyone who actually reads the DMG (all two of them including me apparently) can reasonably arrive at this conclusion.

 

[tetrasodium]

We could argue about how specific we want the skill system to be all week honestly. Let me change it up by asking...
what skill is it to identify wood by smell???

That sounds like an edge case in a campaign with strong nature themes so my answer assumes as much. Knowledge: Nature. It was accessible by only druids & rangers without going cross class & thus a situation where the identification of wood by smell was important would feel like it fed into a given PC's niche within the group. by strict 5e RAW the nature skill is an option for literally every class because any duplication of an offered skill allows the choice of any skill. Continuing that strict RAW either nature or "nope can't be done because the GM decided having 5 players say 'oh I have nature proficiency' in a campaign the GM said would involve [a lot of survival in the wilds (or whatever)]" is just not going to fly when there's literally no narrative hooks for such a thing across a party of noble/folk hero necromancers dragon sorlock battlemaster fighter hexadins or whatever who also in unison say "Oh I have arcana dice clatter 7 15 17 19 23 27"& "Oh I have persuade dice clatter 7 15 17 19 23 27" & "oh I have thieves tools dice clatter 7 15 17 19 23 27" whenever those come up too.

So by RAW...

Spoiler: nobody is super

"That's just too esoteric & not something you could know... No woodcarver's tools carpenter's tools cooper's tools & herbalism tools don't cut it either because you've never brought them up or tried to do anything with your beginner's dabbler tool proficiency gained while spending your spreadsheet's life doing things that have nothing to do with any of those"