D&D 5E Calibration of single character skill checks

[Charlaquin]

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.

The task may be easy in the word’s literal English meaning, yes, which is part of why it doesn’t generally demand an Easy (in ge game jargon sense, meaning DC10) check to accomplish.

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.

I don’t think the first view is consistent with how the rules instruct the DM to adjudicate actions. Moreover, it can lead to thinking of the obstacle being the “source” of the DC rather than the task, e.g. thinking of the lock itself requiring a Hard check to pick, instead of considering the character’s approach (using thieves tools) to their goal (unlocking it) and determining that a Hard check should be required for it to succeed.

 

[ECMO3]

Exactly. A character with a 10 fails at a DC 10 check 45% of the time. The word Easy does not accurately describe something you have barely better than a coin flip’s chance of succeeding at. The DCs may be calibrated based on wanting a completely untrained person to have that success rate, but I believe their names are relative to a character with a bit more training than that.

Agreed and for some real world examples:

1. Assuming you are familiar with american football - a 15 yard field goal is an "easy" field goal. College and pro kickers (who are experts) will make that kick 90% of the time or more. Your average athlete or high school soccer player can probably make it most of the time. Your average joe off the street will miss it quite often even though it is easy.

2. Driving a car down a residential road at 25mph without hitting a curb a parked care or a mailbox is very easy if you drive. However take a 12 year old (i.e. completely untrained) and put him behind the wheel and you are going to frequently run into something.

3. Starting a fire with 2 dry wooden sticks is easy. People were doing this back before writing was even invented and human civilization would have never made it to the civilization stage without it. This is an "easy" task (assuming the wood is not wet), but you would have a lot of people out there who have never done it that would fail if they tried it today.

 

[clearstream]

The task may be easy in the word’s literal English meaning, yes, which is part of why it doesn’t generally demand an Easy (in ge game jargon sense, meaning DC10) check to accomplish.

The literal English meaning is the meaning of the descriptor of the DC. The experienced difficulty can diverge from the descriptor, as for instance a tier-3 character who could approach "hard" DCs with every confidence of overcoming them. That is why it I say it is unhelpful in the long run to look only from the low-level perspective represented by the descriptors.

I don’t think the first view is consistent with how the rules instruct the DM to adjudicate actions. Moreover, it can lead to thinking of the obstacle being the “source” of the DC rather than the task, e.g. thinking of the lock itself requiring a Hard check to pick, instead of considering the character’s approach (using thieves tools) to their goal (unlocking it) and determining that a Hard check should be required for it to succeed.

I believe that view is not correct or convenient. A DC is a fixed property of a task*. Let me preface by saying that I see this as an investigation, not a final position!

First from the point of view of rules - which is what we might label correctness (while acknowledging that correct is really whatever works for you at your table.) Approaches can change the likelihood of success or even obviate the need to make a check, but they do not change the DC of the task. In published material, such as ToA, numerous DCs are given by the designers. Nowhere does it suggest these DCs are formed on a one-to-one basis with actors. A DC 20 secret door in ToA is not DC 10 to one actor and DC 30 to another, but it may be much more probable for one actor to notice it over another. For instance, a character possessed by Papazotl, or one with Dungeoneer. The hard check doesn't become "easy" for one actor and "very hard" for another - where those are fixed descriptors - it remains "hard" i.e. DC 20.

Then there is the matter of convenience. It would be inconvenient to never know the DC until we knew the actor. It is far more convenient to know the DC of a task, and know that the actor may bring to bear an approach that changes their odds of overcoming it. As DM, I can know the DC is 20 without yet deciding the likelihood characters will have of overcoming it.

*It's not clear to me what distinction you are getting at by separating "obstacle" from "task".

 

[clearstream]

1. Assuming you are familiar with american football - a 15 yard field goal is an "easy" field goal. College and pro kickers (who are experts) will make that kick 90% of the time or more. Your average athlete or high school soccer player can probably make it most of the time. Your average joe off the street will miss it quite often even though it is easy.

To me, that speaks to what the descriptors are about. A DC 10 is only "easy" because it is easy from the perspective of a low-level character, as stated in the DMG. A DC 20 is only "hard" from that same perspective. It remains a "hard" DC even though different characters will have different likelihoods of overcoming it.

So your field goal is not "easy" difficulty class: it might be "hard" difficulty class. Difficulty class is the bar to get over, not the chance of getting over that bar. (Although they are related.) So DC should not vary. Per your example, chance of beating DC can vary greatly.


[EDIT On re-reading, I think you might be saying something nearer to what I would agree with. Note ninja-edit.]

 

[Swarmkeeper]

The literal English meaning is the meaning of the descriptor of the DC. The experienced difficulty can diverge from the descriptor, as for instance a tier-3 character who could approach "hard" DCs with every confidence of overcoming them. That is why it I say it is unhelpful in the long run to look only from the low-level perspective represented by the descriptors.

It may not be helpful in all cases, but it is what the designers decided upon.

Also, one could potentially argue the 80-20 rule here. ~80% of game play occurs at first tier so... yeah those DC descriptors are spot on most of the time. (someone, please correct me if you have an accurate account of data to refute my 80-20 claim. The DnD Beyond character data are likely a reasonable approximation. Perhaps more than half is a better estimate than 80%... but I digress).

Further, while certain difficult things are easier for high level characters, the current paradigm of DC descriptors (...10=easy, 15=medium, 20=hard...) still work for that individual 15th level Fighter who dumped INT and is now asked to make an INT(Investigation) ability check.

I believe that view is not correct or convenient. A DC is a fixed property of a task*. Let me preface by saying that I see this as an investigation, not a final position!

I appreciate the bolded reminder. I'm here to learn, too.

First from the point of view of rules - which is what we might label correctness (while acknowledging that correct is really whatever works for you at your table.) Approaches can change the likelihood of success or even obviate the need to make a check, but they do not change the DC of the task. In published material, such as ToA, numerous DCs are given by the designers. Nowhere does it suggest these DCs are formed on a one-to-one basis with actors. A DC 20 secret door in ToA is not DC 10 to one actor and DC 30 to another, but it may be much more probable for one actor to notice it over another. For instance, a character possessed by Papazotl, or one with Dungeoneer. The hard check doesn't become "easy" for one actor and "very hard" for another - where those are fixed descriptors - it remains "hard" i.e. DC 20.

Disagree. An ability check DC is very much dependent upon the approach taken by the PC in the context of said obstacle. Are you really going to say a locked door - which everyone in the party wishes to open - has the same DC for the rogue who is going to use their thieves tools vs the wizard casting knock vs the barbarian who is going to run up and ram it with her body weight vs the bard who is going to punch it (he mad b/c the barbarian didn't like his song of rest)? The approach very much plays into the DC here. Or, let's simplify the example. Is it the same DC for the barbarian who is deciding between two options: 1. run up and slam her body weight into the locked door OR 2. whack at the lock with her great club?

Then there is the matter of convenience. It would be inconvenient to never know the DC until we knew the actor. It is far more convenient to know the DC of a task, and know that the actor may bring to bear an approach that changes their odds of overcoming it. As DM, I can know the DC is 20 without yet deciding the likelihood characters will have of overcoming it.

It's not about the actor, though. It's about the actor's approach and goal. In the previous example, if the barbarian and bard were both to throw their body weight into the door individually, the DC would be the same - just the barbarian might be more likely to succeed based on their stats and abilities.

Another example: there is a 15x15 foot pit blocking the way in a wider-than-usual dungeon corridor. Is the DM to assign a DC to the pit before finding out how the different PCs are going to approach this obstacle? IMO, that is backwards.

Note that the DMG pg 237-239 first instructs DMs to determine if the task proposed by the player is an auto-success or impossible for the PC. Then it tells DMs to only call for a roll if there is a meaningful consequence of failure. Only then, a full page later, does it get into setting DCs.

*It's not clear to me what distinction you are getting at by separating "obstacle" from "task".

Is the distinction clearer now?

 

[clearstream]

Disagree. An ability check DC is very much dependent upon the approach taken by the PC in the context of said obstacle. Are you really going to say a locked door - which everyone in the party wishes to open - has the same DC for the rogue who is going to use their thieves tools vs the wizard casting knock vs the barbarian who is going to run up and ram it with her body weight vs the bard who is going to punch it (he mad b/c the barbarian didn't like his song of rest)? The approach very much plays into the DC here. Or, let's simplify the example. Is it the same DC for the barbarian who is deciding between two options: 1. run up and slam her body weight into the locked door OR 2. whack at the lock with her great club?

These are different tasks. One task is picking the lock, which has a given DC. Another is destroying the door, which has a different DC. In each case, the DC of the given task doesn't vary on a per actor basis. If the barbarian tries to pick the lock, then that has the same DC as it would for the rogue. Right?

The choice of task, and the skill a given actor brings to the task, can vary. But the DC of a given task does not vary.

 

[iserith]

These are different tasks. One task is picking the lock, which has a given DC. Another is destroying the door, which has a different DC. In each case, the DC of the given task doesn't vary on a per actor basis. If the barbarian tries to pick the lock, then that has the same DC as it would for the rogue. Right?

The choice of task, and the skill a given actor brings to the task, can vary. But the DC of a given task does not vary.

It looks to me like you and Swarmkeeper are basically talking about the level of granularity. "Get past the door" can have a lot more approaches than "pick the lock" in a practical sense. Picking a lock in a published adventure often has a DC and may or may not spell out the approach with any degree of precision, so there could be a built-in assumption of "using thieves' tools." (Not that I think published adventures are a good example of anything except often "what not to do," but it was raised as an example upthread.)

 

[Composer99]

IMO, and I think this puts me in agreement with @clearstream, but the difficulty of a task as modeled by its DC should reflect its innate characteristics, and be agnostic to the characters attempting that task.

For instance, a locked door might be opened by picking the lock or forcing the door with brute strength. Either task would have its own DC, but once set, the DC does not change on account of the character attempting it.

(The locked door might be opened via the knock spell or by attacking it with an axe or club, but these approaches refer to different systems by default - knock automatically opens the door via magic, at the cost of announcing the casters presence to anything nearby, and attacking the door uses the rules for object AC and hit points, unless the DM decides to make it an ability check, that is.)

---

Apropos of picking locks in particular, I'm away from my PHB but petty sure the description of thieves' tools indicates they must be used as part of picking a lock.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

These are different tasks. One task is picking the lock, which has a given DC. Another is destroying the door, which has a different DC. In each case, the DC of the given task doesn't vary on a per actor basis. If the barbarian tries to pick the lock, then that has the same DC as it would for the rogue. Right?

Correct, assuming they're both using Thieves' Tools. If someone tried to pick the lock with some makeshift tools, then I'd require a higher DC.

The choice of task, and the skill a given actor brings to the task, can vary. But the DC of a given task does not vary.

It seems you have shifted from tying the DC strictly to the obstacle and moved it to the task - so we are in agreement there.

However, there are certain (possibly edge) cases where the DC for a given task could vary between actors. In the 15' pit example, for instance, someone with STR 16 with enough running space could jump over it, no problem. If a DM were so inclined, they might allow PCs with 15 or lower STR to try, but insist they must make a STR (possibly with Athletics) ability check to make the extra effort to get over - and face some meaningful consequence for failure. A DM might rule that, since a STR 14 character could jump 14' - just 1' short - the PC only needs to beat a DC 5 to make it cleanly. Whereas a STR 10 character would need a more exceptional effort to make up that extra 5+' - and so their STR ability check would be against a DC 10 or 15.

Still, even as I type, something feels a bit off about this to me because, in general, I do believe the same approach should have the same DC. Can you (or someone else) convince me I have this wrong?

 

[Swarmkeeper]

IMO, and I think this puts me in agreement with @clearstream, but the difficulty of a task as modeled by its DC should reflect its innate characteristics, and be agnostic to the characters attempting that task.

We're both (all?) saying that... although I just posted a potential exception to that rule.

For instance, a locked door might be opened by picking the lock or forcing the door with brute strength. Either task would have its own DC, but once set, the DC does not change on account of the character attempting it.

(The locked door might be opened via the knock spell or by attacking it with an axe or club, but these approaches refer to different systems by default - knock automatically opens the door via magic, at the cost of announcing the casters presence to anything nearby, and attacking the door uses the rules for object AC and hit points, unless the DM decides to make it an ability check, that is.)

For picking locks vs other door opening methods, I agree.

---

Apropos of picking locks in particular, I'm away from my PHB but petty sure the description of thieves' tools indicates they must be used as part of picking a lock.

Not sure I follow. I don't see anything that indicates that Thieves' Tools are the only instruments in the game capable of picking locks. Hair pins, small knives, and the like might also be used in a pinch. However, I'd say the approach here is different and so the makeshift lock picks would require a higher (much higher?) DC than the Thieves' Tools for the same lock.