Only if we also assume that players have some control over the fiction their PCs will encounter (which corresponds to those clearly spelled out DCs) and have some control over what will follow from succeeding or failing against those DCs.
D&D 5E Some thoughts on skills.
- Thread starter Reynard
- Start date
iserith
Magic Wordsmith
No, I understand your point, but perhaps you missed the part in the DMG where it says you can stick with just 10, 15, or 20 and your game will run fine. In the same section ("Difficulty Class"), it goes on to talk about how characters at different levels may struggle to hit certain high DCs and that you can mostly ignore DC 5 and just rule success without a roll.
Unless it's a contest in my game, it's always DC 10, 15, or 20. That's true of my gritty zero-to-hero dungeon crawls and my D&D/street level supers mashup. It's true of low level games and high level games in my experience. It works just fine.
How much more needs to be said when it's so simple and clear?
The part where the 10, 15, and 20 is tied to specific actions.
DC 20 is Hard.
What is considered Hard? Hard for whom? How successful should an expert be at Hard actions? How successful should an amateur be at Hard actions? What is considered being an expert or ameteur?
And I do! The primary purpose of narrative is to determine what the players will count as a victory condition in any given moment, what they engage with will produce the situation they'll be making skill checks in, and the results of those checks proceed naturally from the actions themselves.
The rest will be up to whatever is happening in the described fictional situation.
iserith
Magic Wordsmith
Whether a character is an expert or an amateur is, in part, determined by ability score and proficiency (but it doesn't actually matter except for bragging rights). It shouldn't affect DC at all - trying to break down the door with brute strength has the same DC whether the barbarian or the rogue does it. It's just that the barbarian possibly has a better chance of succeeding on the roll, if there is one, if they are stronger than the rogue. All that affects DC is whether the DM thinks whatever you are doing is easy, moderate, or hard. The whole section on Using Ability Scores, which includes Difficulty Class, covers this adequately in my view.
DND_Reborn
The High Aldwin
Taking a page out of other RPGs:
Knowledges -- things you know. For 5E, Intelligence skills definitely, most tools (knowledge separate from application?).
Skills -- things you do. For 5E, Strength and Dexterity skills, maybe some Charisma, perhaps some tools.
Talents -- things about you. For 5E, most Wisdom and Charisma skills, possibly some tools such as instruments.
Each race/class/background could grant so many of each, or you could do a "point-system" where maybe knowledges are 1 point, skills 2 points, and talents 3 points or something?
Knowledges -- things you know. For 5E, Intelligence skills definitely, most tools (knowledge separate from application?).
Skills -- things you do. For 5E, Strength and Dexterity skills, maybe some Charisma, perhaps some tools.
Talents -- things about you. For 5E, most Wisdom and Charisma skills, possibly some tools such as instruments.
Each race/class/background could grant so many of each, or you could do a "point-system" where maybe knowledges are 1 point, skills 2 points, and talents 3 points or something?
Re the bolded - if the rules of the game in question permit the GM/referee to introduce new or hitherto secret content into the fictional situation, so as to affect the outcomes of successful or failed tasks, then the players' ability to make informed and tactical choices reduces.
Classic examples from published modules include if they fail to spot the clue, they find a note or if they kill the BBEG, a lieutenant takes over to keep things in motion.
A more banal example is when a player builds their PC "blind" relative to the GM's plans, and so builds a PC who is excellent at tracking and safe-cracking, but the GM never frames the PC into any situations in which successful tracking or successful safe-cracking would help achieve any player or PC goals.
My two favourite RPGs with the sort of specified DCs you prefer are Burning Wheel and Torchbearer, which use various devices (slightly different across the two system, though not utterly different considering they come from the same design studio) to avoid the sorts of problem I've pointed to.
In the context of the thread, I guess the point I'm making (and I think maybe you agree?) is that we can't talk sensibly about what makes for a good or bad skill system without talking in more general terms about how framing and resolution work.
MichaelSomething
Legend
Isn't that what DM judgement is for??
This seems to me to raise a bigger (or at least more far-reaching) question, which is what do we understand the DCs to mean?
In Rolemaster, DCs are meant to express something about the fiction. They are a tool the GM uses to establish and convey the setting. Burning Wheel is the same, and explains it more clearly:
BW Gold Revised (pp 72-3): It is the GM's job to set obstacles [= DCs]. By presenting obstacles where he sees fit . . . he builds the mood of the game. . . . it is the GM's job to sculpt, pace and nudge the atmosphere in a certain direction. And not just through beautiful descriptions, he uses the game mechanics to reinforce those descriptions.
BW Codex (p 132): [T]hese obstacles create setting. . . . The obstacle is the number, but it's also the object of adversity in the fiction. Obstacles, over time, create a sense of space and logic in the game world.
BW Codex (p 132): [T]hese obstacles create setting. . . . The obstacle is the number, but it's also the object of adversity in the fiction. Obstacles, over time, create a sense of space and logic in the game world.
Compare this to, say, Robin Laws's HeroQuest Revised, where DCs are a pacing device somewhat independent of the fiction:
HeroQuest Revised (p 74): Resistances [= DCs] are usually assumed to have all complicating or mitigating factors build into them . . . Even when PCs re-encounter a previous obstacle, you can change the resistance directly if the pass/fail cycle [= the game's approach to pacing] or other dramatic or pacing reasons indicate that this is the most entertaining choice.
Make sure that you describe changing conditions so that the change in difficulty appears believable. [Examples are then given: weather for archery; market fluctuations for investing; having hired a new mechanic for vehicle performance; etc.]
Make sure that you describe changing conditions so that the change in difficulty appears believable. [Examples are then given: weather for archery; market fluctuations for investing; having hired a new mechanic for vehicle performance; etc.]
Which is 5e meant to be more like? Is DC 20 an objective property of a fictional circumstance, that is meant to also tell us something about (eg) how a typical NPC might experience it? Or is it a choice about how to manage the pacing of play, and so meaningful only in relation to these PCs in this situation?
It seems deliberate that the 5e rules don't answer these questions, as they wish to present themselves as amenable to a wide range of approaches. But any given table might want to form a view about it, to help inform their own approach to the game.
I don't particularly see a problem here. The GM will emulate the fictional world to the best of their ability, including both the information the PCs know and do not know. PCs will often want to find out more information to best achieve their goals.
You're employing a very specific view of the GM's role, which I don't generally ascribe to them. GM's don't frame situations, they provide information about the fictional world, and make decisions for the non-PC actors. Situations emerge from the interactions of the PCs, the setting and the NPCs therein. A PC who can pick locks will attempt to achieve their means by picking locks whenever possible and helpful. A PC who can track will use a different set of tactics than one who can't.
The problem we'll run into, is that you're going to attempt to frame your understanding of the GM's role as a universal framework for roleplaying, I'm going to disagree, and at some point someone will tell me I'm lying (possibly to myself, or possibly in general) and our discussion will thereafter breakdown.
I posit the GM's role is to create a fictional world, and then to serve as a window into that world. Players settle on some goals inside that fictional world, and then do their best to achieve them.
Sure.
But couldn't the DM's judgement be informed? And couldn't the way the DM judges be knowledgeable to the players?
My point is one DM could rule climbing a brick wall as DC 10. Another as DC 15. And a Third DM say it's DC 20. And one book could suggest DC 12. Another book suggest DC 17.
None of them are wrong.
However the choice can affect the genre and style of the game.
That choice, whether to pick 10 or 20, and what the choices mean are often not discussed. Instead we just let the trained thief fall on his face and laugh.
TCOE does this somewhat with Skills being the top tier, then tools then languages.
Then based on your groups use of the feats you could determine how many tool proficiencies are worth a skill proficiency.
Maybe there the general lore skills could be reduced and some turned into lesser proficiency. That way you can combine Supernatural Lore Proficiency and Religion Proficiency to get Proficiency Bonus Plus Advantage.
Now you cleric beats most general checks to know religious facts.
iserith
Magic Wordsmith
It seems to me that expecting the DM to get it exactly "right" is folly, even with an exhaustive list of tasks and DCs. See D&D 3.Xe for an example. That's up to the DM. If a player thinks the DM is using DCs that are too high or inconsistent, they can talk with them about it.
The more I think about this, the more I think that there are two ways to do it correctly.
1) Assume that characters have "proficiency" in skills related to their heritage upbringing, their background, and their class, and give them that bonus on a case by case basis.
2) use detailed skill lists with granular player directed skill point allocation.
The 5E model, like so much of the game, sits in an unsatisfying middle ground.
1) Assume that characters have "proficiency" in skills related to their heritage upbringing, their background, and their class, and give them that bonus on a case by case basis.
2) use detailed skill lists with granular player directed skill point allocation.
The 5E model, like so much of the game, sits in an unsatisfying middle ground.
The GM & player being able to point to a set of mechanics and outline the reasons why they were deployed in a particular way(ie N+2 b/c X +2 b/c Y +2 b/c Z etc) allows for amicable reasoned discussion involving things like reasons why it should be lower (ie -2b/c X¹ -2 b/x Y¹ etc) that avoids a situation where someone gives a reason the other side feels like is just a variation of calvinball because it amused me or worse an incendiary meme.
I think this works best if the players are given some out-of-character info by the GM, so they can make non-blind choices in PC building.
EzekielRaiden
Legend
Not at all. Athletics and Acrobatics are quite clearly different things. But lifting is a form of athletic action. You use the same muscle groups for lifting (and all the things you described) as you would for something like swimming, climbing, digging, or all sorts of other things. Just about the only thing this "lifting" skill wouldn't cover would be stuff involving running or walking!
Conversely, knowing the creatures of nature tells you diddly-squat about magic. Those are, in fact, actually distinct things. Much like Diplomacy, Bluff, and Intimidate, or Insight and Perception.
Further, splitting apart things to an excessive degree of fineness was pretty clearly an error of the 3e skill list. Having separate Listen and Spot skills (instead of just using contextual modifiers...which it already had anyway), or separate Hide and Move Silently skills, or separate Climb/Jump/Ride/Swim, or heck just the Use Rope skill in and of itself--all of this specificity added little to nothing and just compounded the already serious "build your whole character 1-20 before you roll your first check" problems of 3rd edition.
Like, I get it. I get that there's value in specificity--if my stupidly over-long posts haven't shown how much that is my jam, I don't know what will. But I just genuinely don't believe that forking these things out into a separate "Lifting" skill meant to be distinct from "Athletics" makes sense.
Edit: Perhaps a different way of looking at it. The things you've listed, if teased out to their full extent, seem to leave the Athletics skill impoverished to the point that I don't understand why it's still a skill. Which is the whole problem here. Nature and Arcana and such, their existence doesn't hollow out the existence of other knowledge skills. Religious practices are a real serious thing to know about when the gods demonstrably exist. Magical effects are friggin' everywhere, it's worthwhile to have a skill about that.
Conversely, a skill I think should exist but doesn't in the 4e system I've mentioned I enjoy? Engineering. The game kind of handwaves that as being part of Dungeoneering, but I always thought that was dumb. Engineering covers both construction (the only part that overlaps with Dungeoneering) and devices, machinery, design, physical manipulation of the environment via tools (block and tackle, pulleys, etc.) That's an actual separate discipline from all the extant knowledge skills and one that can, and should, be relevant some of the time.
Military stuff, on the other hand? That's History, as is anything--ANYTHING--regarding past events, including cultural traditions and a bunch of other stuff (though complete details on, say, ancient religious practices might require Religion.) Anything--ANYTHING--that uses magic should have at least some intersection with Arcana (but "full details" might require Religion for divine magic or Nature for primal.) Anything--ANYTHING--that involves physical exertion is either Athletics if you use bodily strength and Acrobatics if you use quickness and agility.
That's what I mean when I say these skills are ultra-broad. They're huge chunks of stuff, so investing into them is almost always worthwhile and useful.
Last edited:
iserith
Magic Wordsmith
It looks like a solution in search of a problem to me, at least in this edition of the game. The DM decides. If you don't like the DM's rulings, talk to them. If they don't work with you on it, adapt or find another game. No amount of set DCs for specific tasks you can point to in a book is going to stop a DM acting in bad faith. It just means you can be comforted knowing you were right, except that ultimately you're not, because the rules serve the DM, not the other way around.
EzekielRaiden
Legend
So, "never ever voice criticism of the way things are done, because that's how they're done and you may as well suck it up or give up participating."
Not exactly a constructive message, but not exactly surprising given the culture of play inculcated by 5e.
iserith
Magic Wordsmith
I don't recommend putting words in other people's mouths. Criticize all you want. Just expect some people will find your position baseless and worthy of criticism itself.
Similar Threads
