This is largely a redirect from another thread so as not to derail that thread, just so no one is confused why it looks like we started mid-discussion. We are starting this thread mid-discussion, lol. This thread page 9 is where we are picking up from should anyone wish to look back. If there is a question on context of a statement or quote please ask. 
Perspective A: 5e created a system that empowers DM's to when determining the results of the actions of characters.
Perspective B: 5e failed to create consistency by leaving it in the hands of the DM's, and not having a listed standard prevents players from knowing what their characters can do.
This type of discussion sidetracks threads regularly, so hopefully we can help that out with a location for that discussion.
The basis of the discussion is that 5e does not create a list of DC's to apply skills as we've seen in the past. We are currently comparing what a character can do in 4e to what a character can do in 5e regarding skills and ability checks. If someone reminds me how to
Ability scores matter. That was one of the basic premises coming in because of the complaint that they had become nothing more than a small bonus. That's why proficiency bonus is a much smaller spread than past editions.
The standard range of bonuses for a PC on a check goes from -1 (8 ability no proficiency) to +11 (20 ability 17th level proficiency). Out of that range -1 to +5 is natural ability when +0 to +6 is proficiency. Both are worth up to 6 points of bonus and have equal value with a slight edge to the lower and upper limits applying to proficiency. That's a lot of weight coming from the ability score. It's also where the standard 10/15/20 DC's BA originate to match the standard bonus spread.
The ability check is based on the ability score. Proficiency is a bonus to a subset of ability checks within that ability score. IE DEX applies to acrobatics checks outside of variant ability scores but acrobatics proficiency does not apply to all DEX checks. Not only does the ability score give just as much weight to the DC's and checks as proficiency, it also applies to a lot more checks. That makes the ability scores more meaningful than the skill proficiencies.
It's equal value with more frequency.
Ability scores matter. That was one of the basic premises coming in because of the complaint that they had become nothing more than a small bonus. That's why proficiency bonus is a much smaller spread than past editions.
The standard range of bonuses for a PC on a check goes from -1 (8 ability no proficiency) to +11 (20 ability 17th level proficiency). Out of that range -1 to +5 is natural ability when +0 to +6 is proficiency. Both are worth up to 6 points of bonus and have equal value with a slight edge to the lower and upper limits applying to proficiency. That's a lot of weight coming from the ability score. It's also where the standard 10/15/20 DC's BA originate to match the standard bonus spread.
The ability check is based on the ability score. Proficiency is a bonus to a subset of ability checks within that ability score. IE DEX applies to acrobatics checks outside of variant ability scores but acrobatics proficiency does not apply to all DEX checks. Not only does the ability score give just as much weight to the DC's and checks as proficiency, it also applies to a lot more checks. That makes the ability scores more meaningful than the skill proficiencies.
Compare that to 3e or 4e (which is where you're perspective originates). In 3e we had ranks and synergy bonuses and anything else that might add to those checks. Ranks alone massively increase the scale used compared to 5e proficiency and drive the ability score bonus down into just another bonus. 4e's training bonus is closer to the ability score modifier but then it also adds the half level so the ability score modifier is still just another bonus, and I think this is at odds with sliding DC's based on levels anyway.
In 5e, the ability score bonus is the major component instead of a minor component. The half-level bonus was removed along with the DC by level scale and the proficiency bonus represents 4e's +5 bonus from "trained".
As for not being able to do the things a character can on the 4e list, why not? A list of actions isn't actually needed because any conceivable action is already on that list. A person simply needs to conceive it. The same bonuses cannot be made as 4e because the system is different so the same DC's would not match because the system is different, but it's not the rules that prevent anything. It's the DM.
That's why I say DM empowerment and a consistent list are opposing forces. Creating a fixed list of DC's creates something that defines what 5e let's the DM define with the simple rule of "how hard do you think it should be?" unnecessarily. This can create inconsistencies between tables, but that only matters if the setting isn't defined in session zero or if it's a shared campaign.
I like sharing examples so that DM's and players might have an idea what to try or allow. I can definitely see how a list of actions and DC's might be useful. What I don't see is how 5e prevents someone from doing things just because those things aren't on a list.
Keeping in line with the conversation as it relates directly to 5e, a wizard flat out doesn't open stuck doors like a barbarian. The fact that a wizard can also take athletics (which the wizard class does not actually allow and it needs another source) does not mean the wizard will be opening stuck doors like a barbarian. That's because wizards are not as strong as barbarians and barbarians gain advantage to such checks by raging and barbarians gain a minimum check at a very high level. Just because classes use the same skill system does not mean those skills end up being the same. Ability scores make a huge difference now, and class or race features also change things up.
That means things like wizards excel at recalling lore because of the class proficiency options and INT focus. Barbarians do not. All classes become defined by their primary ability scores in which ability checks they will be good at, and which skill proficiencies they can become great at. A +10 bonus is great. That's when "hard" is "easy" for that character and when "almost" impossible is standard using the extra time rule. Anything beyond +10 in the bonus is the ability to do the same thing more reliably under stress or time constraints. It's the BA magic number in bonuses as to what it represents for that character.
Perspective A: 5e created a system that empowers DM's to when determining the results of the actions of characters.
Perspective B: 5e failed to create consistency by leaving it in the hands of the DM's, and not having a listed standard prevents players from knowing what their characters can do.
This type of discussion sidetracks threads regularly, so hopefully we can help that out with a location for that discussion.
The basis of the discussion is that 5e does not create a list of DC's to apply skills as we've seen in the past. We are currently comparing what a character can do in 4e to what a character can do in 5e regarding skills and ability checks. If someone reminds me how to
Six skills: rogue
Five skills: bard, ranger
Four skills: barbarian, cleric, druid, fighter, monk, paladin, sorcerer, wizard
That's where it sits at a first glance but the number of proficiencies is misleading. One of the key differences that becomes very prominent in play is the focus on ability score bonuses the way it's set up drastically influences skill bonuses. A fighter with a +5 STR bonus get that bonus to much different checks than a wizard with +5 INT bonus. This is true whether they have the same number of proficiencies or even if they take the exact same proficiencies. BA DC's are basically a measurement of 1/3 proficiency, 1/3 (natural) ability, and 1/3 average likelihood (chance and/or circumstance).
Only looking at the proficiencies and proficiency bonuses is ignoring the greater bulk of the equation.
Expertise is actually included in the BA math for those rare 25 DC's and chance (getting lucky) applies to the possible 30 DC's. It's not that expertise is out of sync with BA. It's that people see a bonus and think their favorite class should also have the same bonus even though DC 20 is the normal high / hard task that requires full proficiency and ability score to be reliable under pressure and represents extreme ability.
BA DC's are based on the bonuses possible, not the other way around or in spite of them. It's a number porn concern. Which if funny because those DC's only have meaning if the character is trying to do something that spectacular in the first place and defined as in doubt by the DM. Without that context it's bigger numbers for the sake of bigger numbers. The fact that characters can reasonably try such an action even with a 2-5 point gap in the bonus is the benefit for BA.
I'm going to also use an example of the paladin in our test campaign right now. The group often tries to ambush if they can. The paladin sucks at stealth -- 10 DEX, no proficiency, armor disadvantage. The ranger and bard both have proficiency and 16 DEX / 14 DEX respectively. Neither the sorcerer nor the wizard has proficiency but both also have 14 DEX. Sneaking in as a group and using a group stealth check makes the paladin's terrible stealth almost meaningless. Against typical passive perceptions it's generally a lost cause for the paladin, generally a success for the ranger or bard or both, and statistically likely at least one of the other casters makes those checks. A group check means they need 3 out of 5 characters to beat passive perception so the odds are in their favor.
Now it's not just one or two scouts moving ahead. Never separate the party.
After the basic class plus background proficiency bonuses plus ability score bonuses (which covers more variety of checks than the actual proficiencies) we're looking at add-on proficiencies from races or subclass, or actual class enhancements. The half-elf number of bonus proficiencies is worth just as much as a class or background, and that would move a sorcerer up to 6 proficiencies before a barbarian, but would also move a paladin up before a wizard. Jack-of-all-trades covers a lot of bases while reliable talent is fantastic.
I don't want to derail again, but I would also point out fighter subclasses tend to include benefits with some more often than others. The UA rune knight gives a lot of skill benefits, for example, but the minor benefits seem to happen more often with a fighter subclass than with other subclasses.
I just wanted to point out that ability and skill checks vary by a lot more than the number of proficiencies. Equal number of proficiencies doesn't actually create equality in those choices because of the other related factors.
Ability scores matter. That was one of the basic premises coming in because of the complaint that they had become nothing more than a small bonus. That's why proficiency bonus is a much smaller spread than past editions.
The standard range of bonuses for a PC on a check goes from -1 (8 ability no proficiency) to +11 (20 ability 17th level proficiency). Out of that range -1 to +5 is natural ability when +0 to +6 is proficiency. Both are worth up to 6 points of bonus and have equal value with a slight edge to the lower and upper limits applying to proficiency. That's a lot of weight coming from the ability score. It's also where the standard 10/15/20 DC's BA originate to match the standard bonus spread.
The ability check is based on the ability score. Proficiency is a bonus to a subset of ability checks within that ability score. IE DEX applies to acrobatics checks outside of variant ability scores but acrobatics proficiency does not apply to all DEX checks. Not only does the ability score give just as much weight to the DC's and checks as proficiency, it also applies to a lot more checks. That makes the ability scores more meaningful than the skill proficiencies.
It's equal value with more frequency.
Ability scores matter. That was one of the basic premises coming in because of the complaint that they had become nothing more than a small bonus. That's why proficiency bonus is a much smaller spread than past editions.
The standard range of bonuses for a PC on a check goes from -1 (8 ability no proficiency) to +11 (20 ability 17th level proficiency). Out of that range -1 to +5 is natural ability when +0 to +6 is proficiency. Both are worth up to 6 points of bonus and have equal value with a slight edge to the lower and upper limits applying to proficiency. That's a lot of weight coming from the ability score. It's also where the standard 10/15/20 DC's BA originate to match the standard bonus spread.
The ability check is based on the ability score. Proficiency is a bonus to a subset of ability checks within that ability score. IE DEX applies to acrobatics checks outside of variant ability scores but acrobatics proficiency does not apply to all DEX checks. Not only does the ability score give just as much weight to the DC's and checks as proficiency, it also applies to a lot more checks. That makes the ability scores more meaningful than the skill proficiencies.
Compare that to 3e or 4e (which is where you're perspective originates). In 3e we had ranks and synergy bonuses and anything else that might add to those checks. Ranks alone massively increase the scale used compared to 5e proficiency and drive the ability score bonus down into just another bonus. 4e's training bonus is closer to the ability score modifier but then it also adds the half level so the ability score modifier is still just another bonus, and I think this is at odds with sliding DC's based on levels anyway.
In 5e, the ability score bonus is the major component instead of a minor component. The half-level bonus was removed along with the DC by level scale and the proficiency bonus represents 4e's +5 bonus from "trained".
As for not being able to do the things a character can on the 4e list, why not? A list of actions isn't actually needed because any conceivable action is already on that list. A person simply needs to conceive it. The same bonuses cannot be made as 4e because the system is different so the same DC's would not match because the system is different, but it's not the rules that prevent anything. It's the DM.
That's why I say DM empowerment and a consistent list are opposing forces. Creating a fixed list of DC's creates something that defines what 5e let's the DM define with the simple rule of "how hard do you think it should be?" unnecessarily. This can create inconsistencies between tables, but that only matters if the setting isn't defined in session zero or if it's a shared campaign.
I like sharing examples so that DM's and players might have an idea what to try or allow. I can definitely see how a list of actions and DC's might be useful. What I don't see is how 5e prevents someone from doing things just because those things aren't on a list.
Keeping in line with the conversation as it relates directly to 5e, a wizard flat out doesn't open stuck doors like a barbarian. The fact that a wizard can also take athletics (which the wizard class does not actually allow and it needs another source) does not mean the wizard will be opening stuck doors like a barbarian. That's because wizards are not as strong as barbarians and barbarians gain advantage to such checks by raging and barbarians gain a minimum check at a very high level. Just because classes use the same skill system does not mean those skills end up being the same. Ability scores make a huge difference now, and class or race features also change things up.
That means things like wizards excel at recalling lore because of the class proficiency options and INT focus. Barbarians do not. All classes become defined by their primary ability scores in which ability checks they will be good at, and which skill proficiencies they can become great at. A +10 bonus is great. That's when "hard" is "easy" for that character and when "almost" impossible is standard using the extra time rule. Anything beyond +10 in the bonus is the ability to do the same thing more reliably under stress or time constraints. It's the BA magic number in bonuses as to what it represents for that character.
