House rule for minimum skill checks in 5e

[CubicsRube]

Here's a house rule I've yet to implement.

For skill checks outside of combat, the minimum number that the PC can roll is equal to the attribute score of the check.

For example, someone performing an acrobatics check with a DEX of 12 rolls the check as normal (+1 plus proficiency if applicable). If they roll a 1 or 3 or whatever, the minimum roll is 12. If their DEX is 15, the minimum is 15 etc.

This way a char with a DEX 20 doesn't get any more bonuses and they don't suffer the unbounded accuracy problems of earlier editions, but they will reliably always be able to perform tasks of a DC20 or less (unless they are in combat or under pressure of course!).

Not sure if this seems to powerful for some, but I use numenera style DCs (rating of 1-10 then x 3 for the DC), so a char with a 20 would be able to perform anything of a 6/10 difficulty every time, even if not proficient. That seems fair to me.

What do you all think?

 

[Blue]

I'm not sure if I want a safety net vs. low rolls all the time. When I run, I have a rule of thumb that I only call for a roll if it matters. If it's a trivial result and the character seems like they should be able to do it, they can. So I don't need mechanical auto-successes for those types of low DC rolls. On the other hand, if it has a real effect, the occasional unlikely reversal are something I think can add good story.

Session before last I ran a battle on top of a sky whale and the dexterous rogue missed a check and almost slid off the side. Hanging there is definitely something I could see in a move, and to the protagonist, not just a clumsy character. It definitely added to the drama of the fight.

 

[GMMichael]

It might just be a question of translation: what does Dex 15 mean, how hard is DC 15, and can the former do the latter without fail?

I might be misunderstanding here, but if your low rolls get boosted to a minimum of your ability score, and your high rolls are successes, doesn't that leave a pretty small window in the middle, which would make the rolling almost pointless?

 

[designbot]

There are a few issues with this. First, you can't just import Numenera's difficulty classes to a system with different assumptions. 6 is a "Standard" DC in Numenera, while 5 is "Very easy" in D&D. The most common DC is D&D is 15 ("Medium"), but that's considered "Challenging" in Numenera.

Second, a minimum roll of 20 is much more powerful than being able to "perform tasks of a DC20 or less". A character with DEX 20 adds +5 to their roll, plus +2 to to +6 for proficiency (x2 for Expertise). So, for instance, a level 17 rogue with DEX 20 only needs a roll of 3 to pick a DC 20 lock. Making the minimum roll 20 would give that character the guaranteed ability to meet a ridiculous DC 37 check (not to mention, it would make the roll pointless).

 

[Chimpy]

This feels like trying to fix something that isn't broken.

If an example PC has Dex 15, that means they are moderately above average in agility. If they have a skill in Acrobatics of, say, +5, that means they are pretty good in that skill, with a total modifier of +7

An easy DC is 5. This example character can't fail that check. An average DC is 10. The player of this character would need to roll 1 or 2 to fail - that's a 10% chance. That seems pretty reasonable for a skilled character.

For a harder DC such as 15, the player needs to roll 8 or higher to pass. That's 65% change of success. Again, this seems very reasonable for a hard check with a skilled character.

 

[Jediking]

There was another thread about using 3d6 for skill rolls (not combat) to make a solid bell curve. There were quite a few good points discussed, and I plan on trying out using 2d10 for skill rolls. A slightly more average distribution but still enough tension to make the roll meaningful (and I agree a roll should only be called if something is uncertain).

But I haven't found too many issues with skill checks. Sometimes I rule that people who are proficient get a free pass, or in a group check I use one roll and add modifiers. I have been trying to cut back on stuff like "there's one guard in front of the door" and needing a 5 minute discussion arguing about leaving the Fighter behind or sending the Rogue alone, but a lot of that is just my table.

 

[matskralc]

Being good at something doesn't necessarily mean you're always good at it.

 

[77IM]

Doesn't this trample all over the rogue's level 10 ability?

This would jive better with the 5e math if you used half the ability score. The rules already recommend that you don't roll for DC 5 or lower -- which matches half of ability score 10. Then your character with ability score 20 is only auto-succeeding on DC 10 or less, which is similar to the rogue ability, but only for that one ability score. Someone with a reasonably good score of 14-16 or so is going to auto succeed on DCs of 7-8. That seems pretty reasonable and not game-breaking at all.

 

[steeldragons]

The higher the DC, the more difficult is supposed to be.

The higher the ability score, the more competent/better is that attribute is supposed to be. Skills that utilize those higher abilities should be "easier" to do than skills that don't use it, or those with abilities of lower numbers.

I will reiterate what someone else said about basing it off of a different game's DC system/meshing systems to justify the change...

I mean, if you think it's going to work at your table...because of the alterations you've already made/use in your games, more power to you.

As a houserule anyone else should consider/think makes sense...I'mma thinkin' this is a, "No. Thanks anyway."

 

[StuckInTheEther]

Thanks for your feedback all.

The only reason I have thought about trying this out is that I've been in those "roll to break down the door" "crap i rolled a 6, can i roll again?" Scenarios.

I feel that there should be some baseline to competency, but you're probably right that this is covered by proficiency and stat bonuses anyway.

I've very loosely borrowed the numenera idea. That is, difficulties of 1-3 shouldn't be rolled at all, 4-6 should only be rolled if your ability is average, and 7-10 you need a good ability and skill to be able to get.
[MENTION=6747056]Des[/MENTION]ognbot, the range doesn't change. If i have a stat of 20 and proficiency +6, i still roll 1d20 +11, but if i roll lower than 20 my roll is counter as 20. So basically anything dc 20 i can achieve automatically.

I'm not sold on the idea and it probably is trying to make an unnecesary change, especially if you're a good dm that doesn't make your players roll for everything, but ive seen my fair share of players and dms that do.