D&D 5E (2014) Create a DC 20 Skill check

[Charlaquin]

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

Haha it would be awfully hypocritical of me if I did!

 

[Charlaquin]

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

I don’t understand how what I gave isn’t an actual example. Literally, deciding which of 6 options to call for a check with is easier to do than deciding which of 18 options to call for a check with. I don’t know what else you want me to say.

 

[GMMichael]

SRD: a "hard" task typically gets a DC 20.

There's no mention of to whom the task is considered "hard," so we might assume it's relative to the character. This would suggest that higher-level characters should roll against lower DCs. However, a "character or monster" can make an ability check, which suggests that these two types roll against the same set of DCs, and that the DCs are more objective than I suggested above.

But @Charlaquin has my interpretation of it: Chik-Fil-A's (or cliff faces) don't get DCs, situations do. And since the SRD table is for "typical" difficulties, I'd base the difficulty on the "typical" "character or monster."

How hard is it to jump twice the typical distance? It depends on the situation. Is the distance downhill? Is there a run up to the jump? Is the ground smooth? Is the PC being chased by a horrible creature? Is the bard singing a song of jumping motivation? Is the vaulting point visible? You just have to pick a level on the Typical Difficulty Classes table which gets admittedly murky for me when I try to decide between Medium, Hard, and Very Hard.

 

[Guest 7037866]

I don’t understand how what I gave isn’t an actual example. Literally, deciding which of 6 options to call for a check with is easier to do than deciding which of 18 options to call for a check with. I don’t know what else you want me to say.

Here's the thing. You have to decide both, regardless.

Climbing a cliff certainly is Athletics, no matter how you cut it IMO. Normally, it would be Strength, but depending on what the player says, it might be Dexterity or even Intelligence.

My point is it seems easier based on the action to determine the skill, and then how that skill is used determines the ability that goes with it.

I just don't see a way where deciding the Strength, Dexterity, or Intelligence is the easier part, compared to Athletics aspects.

Of course, I believe it somehow is for you, I was just hoping for an actual example of a task, how you determine the ability first, and then decide if a proficiency applies, helps you. Give me an example from play, for instance.

If you don't want to or still don't get my point, we can drop it--it isn't that vital.

 

[Charlaquin]

Here's the thing. You have to decide both, regardless.

No, I just decide the one. The player determines if they have a relevant proficiency.

Climbing a cliff certainly is Athletics, no matter how you cut it IMO. Normally, it would be Strength, but depending on what the player says, it might be Dexterity or even Intelligence.

Climbing a cliff is typically a strength check in my book, because, as per the PHB, “A Strength check can model any attempt to lift, push, pull, or break something, to force your body through a space, or to otherwise apply brute force to a situation.” Climbing is ultimately an act of lifting/pulling your own body up. I wouldn’t say there’s never a case where one’s attempt to scale a cliff might be a matter of Dexterity or Intelligence, but such a case would likely involve a different approach than climbing. “[Moving] nimbly, quickly, or quietly, or [keeping] from falling on tricky footing” might conceivably be a way to ascend a cliff, but I struggle to imagine how “mental acuity, accuracy of recall, and the ability to reason” would be relevant. However, assuming the typical case of climbing with strength, any number of proficiencies might be able to help with that. Certainly Athletics would probably always be applicable. But, I could easily see, for example, one’s proficiency with water vehicles being relevant, if one relied on knowledge of rigging to set up a rope assisted situation. I leave that up to the player to decide. I choose from the 6 inherent abilities all characters have, and if the player knows they have a proficiency that might be applicable based on their stated approach, they are free to suggest it.

My point is it seems easier based on the action to determine the skill, and then how that skill is used determines the ability that goes with it.

Exactly the opposite in my case.

I just don't see a way where deciding the Strength, Dexterity, or Intelligence is the easier part, compared to Athletics aspects.

I mean, there are literally just fewer categories to choose from in the ability-first approach.

Of course, I believe it somehow is for you, I was just hoping for an actual example of a task, how you determine the ability first, and then decide if a proficiency applies, helps you. Give me an example from play, for instance.

Does the above discussion of a check to climb a cliff satisfy what you’re asking for here?

If you don't want to or still don't get my point, we can drop it--it isn't that vital.

I don’t mind accommodating, it’s just hard for me to tell what additional information you’re looking for.

Like, let’s go with, I dunno, trying to talk a guard into overlooking some minor crime they’ve witnessed you commit. Is that an application of Strength? no, it’s not in any way “an attempt to attempt to lift, push, pull, or break something, to force your body through a space, or to otherwise apply brute force to a situation.” I could go down the full list, but I think you get the idea; ultimately it’s going to end up being a Charisma check. Then, depending on their exact approach, the player can determine if one of their proficiencies is relevant. Persuasion, Deception, and Intimidation would all probably be easy to make relevant if the PC is trained in one of those. Something like History is going to be a little trickier to use in this situation, but I could maybe see making a case for your innocence based on some obscure legal precedent. Jewler’s Tools seems pretty unlikely to be a useful here, but I dunno, players are sometimes come up with really creative approaches, so never say never.

 

[Guest 7037866]

No, I just decide the one. The player determines if they have a relevant proficiency.

Interesting. IME they decide if they think a proficiency might apply, but that ultimate decision is still up to me, as DM. Consider something like Investigation and Perception. A player might think Investigation would apply when they have that skill, when in reality it doesn't-- Perception would. Acrobatics and Athletics is another pairing that can cause some dispute (although not as much!).

Climbing a cliff is typically a strength check in my book, because, as per the PHB, “A Strength check can model any attempt to lift, push, pull, or break something, to force your body through a space, or to otherwise apply brute force to a situation.” Climbing is ultimately an act of lifting/pulling your own body up. I wouldn’t say there’s never a case where one’s attempt to scale a cliff might be a matter of Dexterity or Intelligence, but such a case would likely involve a different approach than climbing. “[Moving] nimbly, quickly, or quietly, or [keeping] from falling on tricky footing” might conceivably be a way to ascend a cliff, but I struggle to imagine how “mental acuity, accuracy of recall, and the ability to reason” would be relevant. However, assuming the typical case of climbing with strength, any number of proficiencies might be able to help with that. Certainly Athletics would probably always be applicable. But, I could easily see, for example, one’s proficiency with water vehicles being relevant, if one relied on knowledge of rigging to set up a rope assisted situation. I leave that up to the player to decide. I choose from the 6 inherent abilities all characters have, and if the player knows they have a proficiency that might be applicable based on their stated approach, they are free to suggest it.

Ok, so I think this helps a bit... I'll address it in parts:

Climbing a cliff is typically a strength check in my book, because, as per the PHB, “A Strength check can model any attempt to lift, push, pull, or break something, to force your body through a space, or to otherwise apply brute force to a situation.” Climbing is ultimately an act of lifting/pulling your own body up.

Climbing is often Strength, it is the easiest to imagine. But Strength has a lot of aspects, and only a part of that the ability to climb. The bolded part is the easiest part, if you know how to climb and have "focus" in that aspect of Strength, i.e. proficiency in Athletics.

I wouldn’t say there’s never a case where one’s attempt to scale a cliff might be a matter of Dexterity or Intelligence, but such a case would likely involve a different approach than climbing. “[Moving] nimbly, quickly, or quietly, or [keeping] from falling on tricky footing” might conceivably be a way to ascend a cliff, but I struggle to imagine how “mental acuity, accuracy of recall, and the ability to reason” would be relevant.

Sure, Dexterity is easy to argue and imagine. Balance, agility, flexibilty when climbing are really more important that "brute Strength". Intelligence (mental acuity and ability to reason) is a bit more of stretch, but if the player says, "I examine the climb to find the best and easiest route", Intelligence is certainly being used. I understand enough about rock formations that it helps with finding secure footing, etc. as well.

Whether it is Strength, Dexterity, or Intelligence for the ability, Athletics which encompasses climbing IS the skill.

However, assuming the typical case of climbing with strength, any number of proficiencies might be able to help with that. Certainly Athletics would probably always be applicable. But, I could easily see, for example, one’s proficiency with water vehicles being relevant, if one relied on knowledge of rigging to set up a rope assisted situation. I leave that up to the player to decide.

Ah, but that is not the "act of the climbing, which must be done." Using rope from such a proficiency might grant advantage, or offer a flat bonus (in your case, perhaps lowering the DC), but you can't make a Strength (water vehicles) check for the actual climb IMO--I just don't see that making any sense with Athletics is what is used for climbing...

I choose from the 6 inherent abilities all characters have, and if the player knows they have a proficiency that might be applicable based on their stated approach, they are free to suggest it.

Sure, but that goes back to the point I made at the start: they suggest it, but you make the choice whether it is applicable, don't you? If you do, then ultimately both ability and skill are up to you.

Exactly the opposite in my case.

I mean, there are literally just fewer categories to choose from in the ability-first approach.

Sure, but those abilities all encompass several aspects each, and you have to decide if an aspect is appropriate or not, in which case the ability is appropriate or not.

Does the above discussion of a check to climb a cliff satisfy what you’re asking for here?

Yep. It isn't the way I approach things, of course (it does seem a bit backwards to me), but just like with solving other problems in life there is nearly always more than one way to do it!

I don’t mind accommodating, it’s just hard for me to tell what additional information you’re looking for.

It gives me enough of an idea. Thanks!

Like, let’s go with, I dunno, trying to talk a guard into overlooking some minor crime they’ve witnessed you commit. Is that an application of Strength? no, it’s not in any way “an attempt to attempt to lift, push, pull, or break something, to force your body through a space, or to otherwise apply brute force to a situation.” I could go down the full list, but I think you get the idea; ultimately it’s going to end up being a Charisma check.

Brute force? Sure... I shove the guard hard, letting them know if they don't look the other way, they'll never see anything else again: Intimidation via Strength. Even if you are just "trying to talk", cracking knuckles, flexing muscles, leaning heavily into the nearby wall so it creaks under your might, snapping a staff into two pieces, explaining you'll break the guard into two pieces just as easily--all Intimidation via Strength IMO.

Of course, verbal threats, offering a bribe, telling a convincing lie about how the crime was to gain the confidence of the thieves' guild so you can infiltrate them to accomplish some noble quest-- Intimidation, Persuasion, Deception all just as applicable -- and likely Charisma. But using a logical argument that the guard will believe, brings Intelligence into it. Wisdom (perceptiveness and intution, is the guard the type this could work?) would be a valid argument for Wisdom instead of Strength, Charisma, or Intelligence.

LOL in certain cases trying to persuasde someone to do something might be Constitution! You keep going on and on and on and on and on (get it? ) until they cave in: Constitution (Persuasion)!

IME it is much more easy to justify different abilities for a check, than justifying a different skill. To be clear, the examples above are all different ways of attempting to influence someone, for example, HOW the PC tries to influence them determines whether Intimidation, Deception, or Persuasion might be called for. If you do a different approach, you can then apply a different skill, certainly, but now you are doing something other than what you were first doing... (that probably isn't clear... hmm... anyway).

Then, depending on their exact approach, the player can determine if one of their proficiencies is relevant. Persuasion, Deception, and Intimidation would all probably be easy to make relevant if the PC is trained in one of those. Something like History is going to be a little trickier to use in this situation, but I could maybe see making a case for your innocence based on some obscure legal precedent. Jewler’s Tools seems pretty unlikely to be a useful here, but I dunno, players are sometimes come up with really creative approaches, so never say never.

Sure, but in those cases would it still be Charisma? The precidence of a prior legal point, reasoning the argument, would seem more like Intelligence.

Anyway, I definitely get your view more clearly now, so thanks for the discussion. Regardless, we both agree creative, different approaches could work with different combinations of ability/skill, and ultimately as long as the DM and players are happy with it, play on!

 

[Charlaquin]

Interesting. IME they decide if they think a proficiency might apply, but that ultimate decision is still up to me, as DM.

In theory, yeah, I agree. In practice, I just let the player make the call, trusting that they understand their own intent better than I do.

Consider something like Investigation and Perception. A player might think Investigation would apply when they have that skill, when in reality it doesn't-- Perception would. Acrobatics and Athletics is another pairing that can cause some dispute (although not as much!).

In my view, if the player thinks Investigation would apply and I think it wouldn’t, there has probably been a miscommunication; they obviously intended to declare an action that benefited from their character’s ability to make decisions based on clues, and something about how they phrased it must not have expressed that intent to me adequately, or else I must have misinterpreted their action declaration. In either case, rather than get bogged down in trying to wordsmith a more appropriate action declaration, I prefer to trust that they knew their intent and let them use the skill they intended to. Unless it’s something really egregious like describing climbing an cliff and then trying to apply animal handling.

Brute force? Sure... I shove the guard hard, letting them know if they don't look the other way, they'll never see anything else again: Intimidation via Strength. Even if you are just "trying to talk", cracking knuckles, flexing muscles, leaning heavily into the nearby wall so it creaks under your might, snapping a staff into two pieces, explaining you'll break the guard into two pieces just as easily--all Intimidation via Strength IMO.

This is why both goal and approach are important in my way of resolving actions. If your goal in snapping the staff is to get two smaller lengths of wood, then strength is the most relevant factor in whether or not that approach achieves that goal. On the other hand, if your goal is convincing the guard to let you off the hook for your crime, then the most relevant thing in determining if snapping a staff in half can achieve that goal is how effectively you can sell the implicit threat of “this is what might happen to you if you don’t let me go,” which in my view is more a matter of Charisma.

Sure, but in those cases would it still be Charisma? The precidence of a prior legal point, reasoning the argument, would seem more like Intelligence.

Intelligence doesn’t measure ability to reason an argument, it measures information retention and recall. Familiarity with the relevant case details (History), and ability to make a convincing case based on those details (Charisma) are the most important factors in my view.

 

[Minigiant]

5E doesn't have skill checks. It has ability checks. Sometimes, an ability check might reflect a task associated with a particular skill.

And that's that I am asking for

Tasks associated to a skill that would have a DC of 20 as an ability check.

But that's an ugly topic title.

 

[Hriston]

And that's that I am asking for

Tasks associated to a skill that would have a DC of 20 as an ability check.

But that's an ugly topic title.

Okay, what did you think about the example I provided?

 

[Minigiant]

Okay, what did you think about the example I provided?

A charisma check to convince someone you are not doing something you are blatantly and obviously dressed and geared to do seems like a DC 20.

People have momentary lapses of processing.

"Digging? Nooooo. This is a communing shovel. You use it to speak to earth spirits."
"Oh. Wouldn't want stray earth spirits in the lord's garden. Give them hell."