Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 8364326" data-attributes="member: 22779">I'll admit, I've only been sort of half following this bit about skills. But, I do think that we're getting a bit lost in the weeds so to speak.In 5e, skill DC's are always supposed to be somewhere in that 5-25 range with nearly all checks being between 10 and 20.&nbsp; Anything over 25 is described as basically super human.&nbsp; And, by the description of skills in 5e, you're not really supposed to use the skills to tell the story.&nbsp; Random checks are only made if there are consequences of failure.&nbsp; That's an important element that often gets glossed over.&nbsp; So, you really never have any DC's for locks, not really.&nbsp; If the party has someone trained in Thieves Tools, they will automatically open any lock.&nbsp; The only time you'd actually make a check is if there was some sort of time pressure or some reason why the character couldn't just do it until the character succeeds.&nbsp; This is one of the main departures from 3e and 4e really where skills and skill checks were a major story element.&nbsp; Can you open that door at all?&nbsp; Is that lock just too difficult?&nbsp; Yes?&nbsp; Then you need to find another way around it.In 5e, skill checks aren't there to do that.&nbsp; The basic assumption is that you will succeed.&nbsp; The only difference is, is there some sort of cost of failure?&nbsp; If there is no cost of failure, then you automatically succeed.&nbsp; This is why they don't really have &quot;knowledge&quot; checks in 5e.&nbsp; They kinda/sorta do, but, certainly not codified like they were in 3e or 4e.&nbsp; Is your character trained in history?&nbsp; Then don't bother making a &quot;history&quot; check to get the DM to parcel out information.&nbsp; The DM is encouraged to automatically parcel out that information.&nbsp; The history check would be for trying to recall some bit of information while that bit of information is trying to eat your face.Otherwise, the DM should just tell you.&nbsp; Which is actually one of the biggest shifts between 5e and earlier skill systems.&nbsp; This presumption that the PC's are always competent.&nbsp; You should never call for a check if there is no consequence for failure.&nbsp; Look at how Jumping has changed for a perfect example.&nbsp; Used to be, in 3e, you'd roll, add your bonus and that would be how far you jump.&nbsp; IIRC, 4e did the same thing.&nbsp; In 5e, there's no roll at all.&nbsp; You jump your Str score in feet.&nbsp; Full stop.&nbsp; Every time.&nbsp; No check at all.&nbsp; Do you have an 18 Str?&nbsp; Yes, then you can ALWAYS jump 18 feet.&nbsp; A check would be there to jump further than that.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 8364326, member: 22779"] I'll admit, I've only been sort of half following this bit about skills. But, I do think that we're getting a bit lost in the weeds so to speak. In 5e, skill DC's are always supposed to be somewhere in that 5-25 range with nearly all checks being between 10 and 20. Anything over 25 is described as basically super human. And, by the description of skills in 5e, you're not really supposed to use the skills to tell the story. Random checks are only made if there are consequences of failure. That's an important element that often gets glossed over. So, you really never have any DC's for locks, not really. If the party has someone trained in Thieves Tools, they will automatically open any lock. The only time you'd actually make a check is if there was some sort of time pressure or some reason why the character couldn't just do it until the character succeeds. This is one of the main departures from 3e and 4e really where skills and skill checks were a major story element. Can you open that door at all? Is that lock just too difficult? Yes? Then you need to find another way around it. In 5e, skill checks aren't there to do that. The basic assumption is that you will succeed. The only difference is, is there some sort of cost of failure? If there is no cost of failure, then you automatically succeed. This is why they don't really have "knowledge" checks in 5e. They kinda/sorta do, but, certainly not codified like they were in 3e or 4e. Is your character trained in history? Then don't bother making a "history" check to get the DM to parcel out information. The DM is encouraged to automatically parcel out that information. The history check would be for trying to recall some bit of information while that bit of information is trying to eat your face. Otherwise, the DM should just tell you. Which is actually one of the biggest shifts between 5e and earlier skill systems. This presumption that the PC's are always competent. You should never call for a check if there is no consequence for failure. Look at how Jumping has changed for a perfect example. Used to be, in 3e, you'd roll, add your bonus and that would be how far you jump. IIRC, 4e did the same thing. In 5e, there's no roll at all. You jump your Str score in feet. Full stop. Every time. No check at all. Do you have an 18 Str? Yes, then you can ALWAYS jump 18 feet. A check would be there to jump further than that. [/QUOTE]

Verification