D&D 5E Ability check DC based on level

[auburn2]

Some things don't care how skilled you are and so should scale with level. For example, slick surfaces. No matter if you're a circus acrobat or a candlestick maker, 'balancing' while walking on ice is a measure of raw agility more than skill at balance because unlike a tightrope, random ice is random.

My Grandmother had a lot more experience than I did before she died at age 99, but I was much better able to avoid falling on ice. I would imaging a teen Gymnast, or most teens for that matter, would be better at it than I am despite ice being random phenomenon. I also think the Gymnast's practice on the balance beam or pommel horse would translate to better balance on an icy driveway compared to if she had never done those things.

I honestly don't see how experience should play into that at all, unless that experience is related to what you are trying to do.

 

[auburn2]

If the difficulty of something should be static regardless of how skilled you are and relies on raw ability, simply don't let anyone to add a proficiency bonus.

One of my DM's does this a lot asking for basic strength and dexterity checks. Sometimes this frustrates me because I usually invest proficiency or even expertise in athletics and I feel he is nerfing me, but it is his table and I get it.

To his credit, the things he asks for are not really athletic things.

 

[Emerikol]

I agree that for proficiency/skill checks that a d20 is way too swingy. I'd use 2d10 and not worry about it. For combat though I find the d20 to be fine. Combat is swingy by its nature.

 

[Reynard]

I disagree.

Some things don't care how skilled you are and so should scale with level. For example, slick surfaces. No matter if you're a circus acrobat or a candlestick maker, 'balancing' while walking on ice is a measure of raw agility more than skill at balance because unlike a tightrope, random ice is random.

This makes no sense to me. Balance is a function of a number of factors, including what we traditionally think of as "balance" as well as core fitness and body control -- all things that improve with practice and skill in associated areas (a balance based gymnast or acrobat is absolutely going to be able to stay on their feet on that ice better than someone else). The real question in 5E is whether that ice comes with a DC for a Dex(Acrobatics) check, applies disadvantage to checks, or requires a Dex saving throw -- all of which model the world in a different way.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I agree that for proficiency/skill checks that a d20 is way too swingy. I'd use 2d10 and not worry about it. For combat though I find the d20 to be fine. Combat is swingy by its nature.

I did things exactly this way for my two Eberron campaigns... 2s10 for skills, and 1d20 for attacks, saves, and the STR-Athletics checks for combat maneuvers (like shove & grapple). And for me it worked wonderfully (other than a couple players who couldn't or refused to remember to use 2d10 for skills and made it a point to always complain about forgetting about it.)

 

[Reynard]

I did things exactly this way for my two Eberron campaigns... 2s10 for skills, and 1d20 for attacks, saves, and the STR-Athletics checks for combat maneuvers (like shove & grapple). And for me it worked wonderfully (other than a couple players who couldn't or refused to remember to use 2d10 for skills and made it a point to always complain about forgetting about it.)

Why is it better to maintain the swinginess in combat if it is a problem in skill usage?

 

[overgeeked]

I agree that for proficiency/skill checks that a d20 is way too swingy. I'd use 2d10 and not worry about it. For combat though I find the d20 to be fine. Combat is swingy by its nature.

I tend to do a lot more auto successes with skills and only have rolls when success and failure both provide interesting results. Unless it properly matters if some skill check succeeds or if the failure will cause real problems, it’s not worth rolling.

 

[Laurefindel]

I tend to do a lot more auto successes with skills and only have rolls when success and failure both provide interesting results. Unless it properly matters if some skill check succeeds or if the failure will cause real problems, it’s not worth rolling.

Same for me here,

I don't mind the swinginess of the d20 that much because when I call for a roll, the situation is usually swingy (high stress, significant risks or benefits, conditions are less than ideal, etc). In cases where the result is/should be predictable, I tend to skip the roll altogether, so more predictability is not what I'm after.

That being said, it's all a matter of balance, and whereas my sweet spot is well represented by the d20, I can see how another person's sweet spot can lie in a more weighted curve of probability.

 

[Emerikol]

Why is it better to maintain the swinginess in combat if it is a problem in skill usage?

I think performing a skill is far more reliable an activity than striking an enemy in combat or defending against an attack for that matter. I agree that in situations where there is plenty of time I want success more often for expected things. I don't want a 5% chance of opening the greatest lock in history and also a 5% chance of failing to open the simplest lock a 1st grade thief opens often. That seems unrealistic to me. Combat though is ongoing and the law of probabilities put the better character at a great advantage already.

 

[Reynard]

I think performing a skill is far more reliable an activity than striking an enemy in combat or defending against an attack for that matter. I agree that in situations where there is plenty of time I want success more often for expected things. I don't want a 5% chance of opening the greatest lock in history and also a 5% chance of failing to open the simplest lock a 1st grade thief opens often. That seems unrealistic to me. Combat though is ongoing and the law of probabilities put the better character at a great advantage already.

That makes sense but I would be inclined to say that if there's no room for the swinginess, there's probably no need for the roll in the first place. Picking a lock is a thing that, given time, any trained character can probably do -- unless it is so complicated that only a true master can do it. In either case, a roll seems inappropriate unless pressed for time or under fire. And if pressed for time or under fire, I don't see why the skill use should be any more reliable than, say, aim.