D&D 5E Calibration of single character skill checks

[Minigiant]

What do you mean by “skill classes”? That term doesn’t sound like a thing in 5e.

Classes that get expertise or bonus skill proficiencies

 

[Swarmkeeper]

It can produce a slightly different result, too. I don't believe this quibble materially impacts my central point, which is that a sailor can't really fail to dock their boat. The check is easy (DC 10, barring unusual factors like a raging storm) and they pass it without rolling.

In your example there really is no “check”. Perhaps you meant “the task is easy” so the sailor doesn’t need to make a check - the DM grants auto-success.

I find it helpful to think about the DCs from the perspective of low-level characters (including in my view, 0th level or "skilled" people). On that same page in the DMG it describes that "a DC 30 check is nearly impossible for most low-level characters" and the perspective "low-level characters" is repeated in several places. So I believe that's what the designers were going for. @Swarmkeeper take a look at DMG239 - the section on Difficulty Class. Rather than "most likely" I believe it almost certain that the designers wrote the DCs from the perspective of low-level characters... because they say they did on that page.

Yes, that’s what I’m interpreting @Charlaquin to mean. You seem to be quibbling over the degree of my “most likely” vs your “almost certain”.

While that helpfully anchors the day-to-day world, it is not quite so useful for DMs. I believe DMs need to have in mind characters who can achieve what would be nearly impossible for a low-level character. Say at second tier - +4 mod, +3 prof, +3 exp, +d4 guidance, +d8 inspiration - 13-42 with an average roll of 27. For me that can lead to an interesting investigation of ones assumptions about the game-world.

Good use of “anchors” to allude to your sailor example!

I disagree here. First of all, second tier is not low-level, so you’re now changing the definition you just established. Second, if a party brings their resources to bear in accomplishing tasks more easily (or even automatically), that’s great and should be encouraged. Inspiration, expertise, guidance, and the like are not always available and really needn’t be considered by the DM when setting DCs. As @iserith mentions above, the DC (if one is even needed) should be based on the task at hand and the approach. Otherwise, IMO, we are encouraging the DM to engage in an ability check arms race for no real gain in game play fun.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Classes that get expertise or bonus skill proficiencies

I’m not following…

You want to “hand out expertise and reliable talent” to all the “skill classes” that already “get expertise or bonus skill proficiencies”.

Rogues are all set already.
Bards just need Reliable Talent.

Is this really what you are getting at?

 

[Charlaquin]

It can produce a slightly different result, too. I don't believe this quibble materially impacts my central point, which is that a sailor can't really fail to dock their boat. The check is easy (DC 10, barring unusual factors like a raging storm) and they pass it without rolling.

If they succeed without rolling there isn’t a check.

 

[Minigiant]

I’m not following…

You want to “hand out expertise and reliable talent” to all the “skill classes” that already “get expertise or bonus skill proficiencies”.

Rogues are all set already.
Bards just need Reliable Talent.

Is this really what you are getting at?

I mean artificers, rangers, and monks.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I mean artificers, rangers, and monks.

Ah, thanks for the clarification. I get where you are coming from now.

 

[Helpful NPC Thom]

I don't calibrate skill check DCs based on the player characters; I calibrate them on what seems reasonable within the fiction. Usually I set the DCs around 13-18 and will increase them higher based on what a player is trying to accomplish. If a player wants to accomplish more with a single roll, the DC goes higher, where if he shoots for a more average result, I'll lower it. Example: convincing the guards to let you walk into the king's throne room fully armed and intimidating? DC 20. Allowing the party to be disarmed except for the wizard requesting to keep his staff? That might be a bit lower, or it might not.

Special circumstances alter DCs if I've noted them in advance. A wall that is covered with slime, for example, might be a base DC 15 to climb but it's so slippery that I'll bump it up to DC 20 (or impose disadvantage).

Failure states change regardless of DC. A failed check might have harsh consequences with a low DC, and it might not even with a high DC. Sweet-talking the king into loaning you his crown? You're laughed and escorted out of the courtroom on a failure. Sweet-talking the king into funding an expedition to unexplored territory? Failure might be the king agrees, but the boat you get is a leaky cast-off that was retired from service.

 

[clearstream]

In your example there really is no “check”. Perhaps you meant “the task is easy” so the sailor doesn’t need to make a check - the DM grants auto-success.

I mean the task is "easy". Is that what you mean? Where we might differ is that I am thinking about what that could tell us about the game world, and the nature of day-to-day activities within it.

In one view - there is a putative check, but it is consistently waived. In another view, there is no check. What I find helpful about the first view is that it argues for in-world consistency. Whereas the second view creates a mystery - a kind of epiphenomenal ectoplasm - an aspect of the world disconnect from other aspects. For whatever reason - partly intuitively - I prefer the first view.

Yes, that’s what I’m interpreting @Charlaquin to mean. You seem to be quibbling over the degree of my “most likely” vs your “almost certain”.

I mean to buttress the view that the DCs get their meaning from the point of view of "low-level characters" - which is what I understood @Charlaquin was espousing. Did it seem that I was disagreeing? I was saying that words in the DMG add substantial weight to that view.

I disagree here. First of all, second tier is not low-level, so you’re now changing the definition you just established. Second, if a party brings their resources to bear in accomplishing tasks more easily (or even automatically), that’s great and should be encouraged. Inspiration, expertise, guidance, and the like are not always available and really needn’t be considered by the DM when setting DCs. As @iserith mentions above, the DC (if one is even needed) should be based on the task at hand and the approach. Otherwise, IMO, we are encouraging the DM to engage in an ability check arms race for no real gain in game play fun.

You may have mistaken the intent of my second example. I start by saying "While that helpfully anchors the day-to-day world, it is not quite so useful for DMs." So I mean that while a low-level perspective anchors the description-text of DCs (such that very hard actually is very hard), it stops being useful quite early on in a campaign arc.

In the DMG, the designers explain their intended pacing - they expect about ten 4-hour sessions to get to level 6 - so after ten sessions a group can often expect to have characters with an average roll of 27. So apposite to the OP, when it comes to calibrating skill checks I believe those descriptors - based as they are on low-level characters - stop being helpful.

 

[clearstream]

I don't calibrate skill check DCs based on the player characters; I calibrate them on what seems reasonable within the fiction.

Likewise, but what is happening in the fiction as characters level is very often that they are confronting far greater challenges. So the average lock on a house door doesn't suddenly escalate in DC, but they are attempting to defeat a lock designed to protect an artifact precious to the high house Dannihyr of Amn.

 

[clearstream]

If they succeed without rolling there isn’t a check.

That's what I am challenging on considerations like usefulness and mechanical necessity. There is a check, but it is waived... for skilled characters. It's conceivable for there to exist a being that can regularly fail that same check, and such a being would need to make the check.