D&D 5E Skill Check Question & Comments

[Water Bob]

I checked out the PHB tonight at the bookstore. I spent a lot of time just standing there, flipping through pages. I'm quite impressed with it.


Here's a question for those of you playing 5th edition: I like how the finicky skill points are a thing of the past. They were always a nightmare of bookkeeping. I see now, if you're good at something, you roll an attribute check, and if you're really good at that skill, then you are considered "advantaged". Therefore, you roll twice and take the higher of the two rolls.


I'm not sold on this mechanic. With skill points, one could get quite good at one or a few things while neglecting other skills and being just average at still more skills.


How does that play?


I guess the granularity is thrown out with the detail of the skill points. Now, it seems, a character is either average (for his attribute), disadvantaged, or advantaged. That's it.


And, there is no way for a character to outgrow the deficiency of his attribute. For example, if a character wanted to be good at Lockpicking, he could stack a pretty fair bonus in that one skill even if he did have a low DEX. It seems, in 5E, if a character has a low DEX, then every skill governed by DEX will never be able to shine as high as it used to in 3rd edition.

 

[Lancelot]

That's not quite how it works.

When you make a skill check in 5e, you roll the relevant stat bonus. If you're proficient (trained) in the skill, you also add your proficiency bonus. Example: DM asks three characters to make an Athletics (Strength) check. The wizard has an 8 Strength and no Athletics proficiency; he's rolling d20-1. The fighter has a 16 Strength and Athletics proficiency (with a +2 Prof bonus at 1st-4th level); she's rolling d20+5. The cleric has a middling 10 Strength, but has Athletics proficiency thanks to a Background as a mountain-dwelling outlander; he's rolling d20+2.

Advantage (rolling twice, taking the best) usually doesn't come into it. You might get Advantage because a buddy is helping you (Aid Other) or because of special DM circumstance, or equipment, or whatever. But a normal skill check has nothing to do with Advantage. It's your ability bonus + your proficiency bonus, if you're proficient.

Now, the key thing to remember is that Proficiency bonus automatically gets better as you go up levels (+2 at 1st-4th level, increasing eventually to +6 at the top range). Also, DCs are static and bounded. They don't increase as you go up levels, unlike 4e and (to some extent) 3e. A Hard DC 20 at 1st level is the same Hard DC 20 at 20th level. Most checks are going to be closer to DC 15, for the PC's entire adventuring career. A 20th level character will be successful more often on those checks (if proficient) but otherwise it's not a "numbers arms race".

So, I think your concern is allayed. Here's why: your low Dex character takes proficiency in (say) Acrobatics. He has 8 Dex, but proficiency (+2 at 1st level). His total bonus is +1, which isn't as hot as the 16 Dex (non-proficient) ranger, who is rolling at +3 due to natural agility. However, as both characters increase in level, the proficient dude gets steadily better... while the ranger never changes (unless he increases his Dex stat). By 20th level, the character with the 8 Dexterity (very clumsy) is as good as the ranger... even if the ranger has used his ability score increases to push his Dex all the way to the maximum of 20!

[to make this explicit: the ranger will have +5 to all Dex checks for her 20 Dex but no proficiency bonus, whereas the 8 Dex character will have -1 due to Dex but +6 due to Proficiency = the same +5 bonus. Also note that, if the ranger didn't increase their Dex beyond 16, the 8 Dex PC will eventually overtake them at Acrobatics as they increase their level!]

Further, at no level is it impossible for a PC to succeed on most Medium checks. Thanks to bounded accuracy, you never get the 3e/4e situation where an unskilled character really has no chance of getting the DC 30 or 40 needed to achieve high level diplomatic, lockpicking, trapfinding, stealth, perception, etc checks. A mere +0 bonus (no training, no stat bonus) is still enough to give you a fighting chance of spotting the CR 15 creature with +6 Stealth, or disarm the 17th level DC 14 trap.

 

[Lancelot]

One other quick note: there are some classes (and maybe some feats, items, etc) that can further influence skill checks. Rogues, for example, are skill masters. They get to apply double their normal proficiency bonus for a small subset of their skills. So, a low-level rogue might have the normal +2 Proficiency bonus in 4-5 skills, but they might have +4 Proficiency bonus to 2 specialized skills (say, Stealth and Acrobatics).

Where this gets really interesting is when rogues choose to master a skill where they have a traditionally low stat. One of my players, for example, is rocking a 10 Strength rogue with skill mastery in Athletics. Even at low levels, his +4 Athletics puts him on par with an (untrained) 18 Strength fighter. As the rogue increases levels, he'll eventually top out with a +12 Athletics (max Prof +6, x2 for special rogue skill mastery). That's a rogue who will be outclimbing and outjumping Conan the Barbarian, despite only being able to bench press 100 lbs...

 

[pemerton]

With skill points, one could get quite good at one or a few things while neglecting other skills and being just average at still more skills.

<snip>

there is no way for a character to outgrow the deficiency of his attribute. For example, if a character wanted to be good at Lockpicking, he could stack a pretty fair bonus in that one skill even if he did have a low DEX. It seems, in 5E, if a character has a low DEX, then every skill governed by DEX will never be able to shine as high as it used to in 3rd edition.

I think the expectation, in 5e, is that the character who wanted to be really good at lockpicking would boost DEX. The game gives a fairly large number of stat boosts as part of level-up, with a hard cap of 20.

 

[Water Bob]

Thanks to both of you. It's much clearer now.