D&D 5E Create a DC 20 Skill check

[Quickleaf]

i mean...in that case, my question would be that if his dive was a DC 41, how did he do it? even assuming he were a level 20 rogue (which i refuse to believe he is, but for the sake of argument i'll assume it), the highest check he could make would be a DC 37, which would be 170* feet. and he did it without injury, which i would take in this context to mean he took no damage.

EDIT: * - forgot the initial 10 feet, fixed

High level divers get feather fall, apparently

edit: or Monk maybe?

 

[Hriston]

I mean, I think it’s an important distinction, but I’ve stopped saying it because I’ve noticed it elicits reactions like this from a lot of people. If it makes more sense with how you conceptualize and run checks to think of them as skill checks and call them such, then more power to you. For me, it’s really helpful to think of the ability as the thing being checked, and proficiency (be it in a skill, a tool, or even a weapon) being a sort of conditional modifier to that check. Plus the ability-first format allows me to focus on calling for one of 6 checks instead of one of 18, and allow the players to add their proficiency bonus if they have a relevant proficiency (again, skill, tool, or even weapon). But, of course, it’s not wrong to conceptualize checks differently than that.

All this, plus it's possible the character has no relevant proficiency or that one doesn't exist. It's still an ability check. IMO, it makes a lot more sense to ask a player whose character is not proficient in Deception, Intimidation, Performance, or Persuasion for a Charisma check rather than any of those skills because that's what the player is rolling.

 

[bedir than]

How does this have anything to do with what I was talking about? I mean, I also narrate why a PC succeeds or fails on any roll... but using a system to randomly determine the DC given a range instead of always using a set DC seems unrelated.

Your system: It's DC 15+1d6 to demonstrate the easier routes and the difficult routes.
My system: They rolled a 19 on a DC to demonstrate that they found an easier route.

Seems pretty related

 

[ezo]

Your system: It's DC 15+1d6 to demonstrate the easier routes and the difficult routes.
My system: They rolled a 19 on a DC to demonstrate that they found an easier route.

Seems pretty related

Not really.

What is the DC in your system? My system is about setting the DC, your "system" is not about setting the DC, as we have no idea what DC you are using...

Try again??

 

[bedir than]

Not really.

What is the DC in your system? My system is about setting the DC, your "system" is not about setting the DC, as we have no idea what DC you are using...

Try again??

It was meant to be 15, the same. I just forgot to type it.

Again, the difference is where the justification for the easier route comes in (continuing the climbing example).

 

[Nefermandias]

Dungeon Master's Guide, page 258:

A character can instead attempt to harvest poison from a poisonous creature, such as a snake, wyvern, or carrion crawler. The creature must be incapacitated or dead, and the harvesting requires 1d6 minutes followed by a DC 20 Intelligence (Nature) check. (Proficiency with the poisoner's kit applies to this check if the character doesn't have proficiency in Nature.) On a successful check, the character harvests enough poison for a single dose. On a failed check, the character is unable to extract any poison. If the character fails the check by 5 or more, the character is subjected to the creature's poison.

 

[Charlaquin]

Could you provide an example how you feel it is more helpful for you to conceptualize it "ability-first"?

I did in the post you’re quoting. With ability-first, I can focus on determining which of 6 abilities to call for a check with instead of which of 18 skills to call for a check with. This kinda goes hand-in-hand with my approach of setting DCs only when an action is declared.

Certainly neither is wrong or right, it is what works. But when people insist on bringing up this point (after 10 years!), it just comes off as "I know better than you" IME, intentionally or not.

For sure

 

[ezo]

It was meant to be 15, the same. I just forgot to type it.

Again, the difference is where the justification for the easier route comes in (continuing the climbing example).

Ah, ok. Thanks.

But they still are two different things as I see it, and not related as one determines the random DC, the other is about intrepreting the results of the roll compared to a set DC...

You have DC 15. The player rolls 15 total. They made it, but you interpret they struggled and must have climbed a rougher section. If their total was 19, you interpret they made it easily (right?), climbing a section with more handholds, etc..

My DC is base 15, but random from 15-20 (d6+14) to determine the section of the cliff they are climbing. I roll a 1. The DC is 15 now, so the PC is actually attempting at an easier section. Had I rolled a 5, the DC would be 19, meaning the PC is climbing a harder section of the cliff.

Now, the player rolls. In the firse case (DC 15), the player rolls a total 15. They just made it, despite it being an easier section to climb. Had they rolled a 19 total, they made it more easily. [This is the part where we both interpret how easy success was by comparing it to the DC.]

In the secon case with the harder DC 19, the player's 15 total fails. They make no progress while attempting the climb. Of course against this DC 19, the player's total 19 makes is, but "just barely" indicating a rough climb on a harder section of the cliff.

 

[ezo]

I did in the post you’re quoting. With ability-first, I can focus on determining which of 6 abilities to call for a check with instead of which of 18 skills to call for a check with. This kinda goes hand-in-hand with my approach of setting DCs only when an action is declared.

I get that, I meant an actual example demonstrating how it helps you?

 

[Hriston]

I did in the post you’re quoting. With ability-first, I can focus on determining which of 6 abilities to call for a check with instead of which of 18 skills to call for a check with. This kinda goes hand-in-hand with my approach of setting DCs only when an action is declared.

And it also makes sense in terms of what you're asking the player to roll. Why would someone ask a player to roll a skill in which they're not proficient? What they need to know is which ability!

For sure

You wouldn't begrudge me a little pedantry now, would you?