D&D 5E Some thoughts on skills.

[Pedantic]

And many would rather have that instead of a fantasy they don't like being imposed upon them.

You literally always have that. It's free and doesn't require design work.

 

[Kinematics]

Random thought I had as I tried to catch up on the thread, and may have missed someone else suggesting:

What about changing Expertise so that, instead of doubling the added proficiency bonus, it just gave automatic advantage?

The average bonus would be the about same (about +4 for advantage, and +4 proficiency at levels 9-12), but the maximum would be lower, which means it causes fewer problems butting up against bounded accuracy. It could still be cancelled out by disadvantage, but the worst you could roll would be a normal d20 roll.

In a more general sense, being an expert at a skill means you just tend to always do well no matter how difficult the circumstances, rather than that you can do exceptionally better than anyone else.

 

[Minigiant]

You seem to be undermining your previous criticism about framing the guidance with a character with a 10 ability score. If you are correct in your assertion that "most players won't have many 10s in 5e and will avoid actions that use an ability score with a 10," which is somewhat reasonable, then it actually will be Easy, relatively speaking, since characters will have higher scores than 10 and/or will tend to focus on those related tasks (as you say). So that 50% chance of failure drops. Also, don't forget advantage, plus other bonuses players can apply to further increase the odds of success. Clearly, the DMG is just trying to get DMs a ballpark idea of what the odds are, given certain assumptions, rather than a primer on probability and statistics.

My point is the 50/50 isn't what I consider to be easy. And some others might think so to.

So against is it supposed to be easy for a person with a 10 and no ability score.
Or is DC 10 supposed to be easy for a person with a 15 and proficiency in the roll?

Because here is the main rub.

A +2 does not have a significant change in the outcomes with a d20 roll. A +4 with advantage might, but a raw +2 doesn't. It takes a lot of rolls for a +2 to feel and be effective. But D&D pretends it does and uses language like it does. And this creates the meme of the cleric who doesn't know his own religion or the thief who can't pick locks.

This math and bonuses don't have to change. However at some point D&D has to man up an admit that a +2 doesn't matter as much as the big swings of the d20 or the 5 point gaps between DCs. And just picking stuff can have a DM pick the wrong DM for them.

That to me is missing to, how to choose. D&D tell the DM that they can choose and what they can choose. It doesn't inform them how to make the choice. Because picking a DC 10 vs a DC 20 is a big choice if failure or success is impactful.

 

[Krachek]

The point is the stunt would be Hard for the Cleric but Easy for the Fighter.

Which DC do I choose?
DC 10 for Easy?
DC 15 for Medium?
Or DC 20 for Hard?

The game doesn't even tell you the percentage of success is for each PC. It doesn't tell a starting DM how many of the PCs will fail a DC 15 so don't make failure a major consequence unless your desire is to have to a daunting game.


How can you place importance of you don't know the difficulty of the action?

Unless accidentally maiming, killing, or some other major consequence is part of your vibe. Or in contrast your game is very forgiving by design.

The DM ask for a check when he consider that the result of the task is uncertain.
If he consider the task an obvious success or failure he don’t ask a check.
Once he ask a check he accept to play with the result, and manage to narrate, explain, make it coherent with the rest of the story.

in your example, fighter has +6, if you set the DC to 10, the fighter may fail.
maybe a pure bad luck, but he can fail. You may be prepare to handle the failure. If you set the DC to 5 you can skip the roll for the fighter, unless you play critical miss on skill, and then be ready to explain and handle the failure in case of a roll 1.

if the consequence of failure are really harsh, say the failure of a check equal death, then warn the player, your character may die if he miss the jump. then let him roll If he want, nobody IRL will be hurt.

 

[tetrasodium]

My point is the 50/50 isn't what I consider to be easy. And some others might think so to.

So against is it supposed to be easy for a person with a 10 and no ability score.
Or is DC 10 supposed to be easy for a person with a 15 and proficiency in the roll?

Because here is the main rub.

A +2 does not have a significant change in the outcomes with a d20 roll. A +4 with advantage might, but a raw +2 doesn't. It takes a lot of rolls for a +2 to feel and be effective. But D&D pretends it does and uses language like it does. And this creates the meme of the cleric who doesn't know his own religion or the thief who can't pick locks.

This math and bonuses don't have to change. However at some point D&D has to man up an admit that a +2 doesn't matter as much as the big swings of the d20 or the 5 point gaps between DCs. And just picking stuff can have a DM pick the wrong DM for them.

That to me is missing to, how to choose. D&D tell the DM that they can choose and what they can choose. It doesn't inform them how to make the choice. Because picking a DC 10 vs a DC 20 is a big choice if failure or success is impactful.

I think that the point of +/-2 is that they add up when you have a bunch and that one can be applied to a squeaker of a roll without much fuss. I largely agree that a d20 is terrible.

 

[Minigiant]

The DM ask for a check when he consider that the result of the task is uncertain.
If he consider the task an obvious success or failure he don’t ask a check.
Once he ask a check he accept to play with the result, and manage to narrate, explain, make it coherent with the rest of the story.
In your example the DM can ask a check for the cleric but not for the fighter.

The DM is giving the Fighter and Cleric the same DC.

My point is the choice of DC 10, DC 15, and DC 20 is not a trivial choice. But most DD fans treat it as trivial. So trivial you didn't even mention it.

A whole step is skipped.

 

[Krachek]

The DM is giving the Fighter and Cleric the same DC.

My point is the choice of DC 10, DC 15, and DC 20 is not a trivial choice. But most DD fans treat it as trivial. So trivial you didn't even mention it.

A whole step is skipped.

in your example, fighter has +6, if you set the DC to 10, the fighter may fail.
maybe a pure bad luck, but he can fail. You may be prepare to handle the failure. If you set the DC to 5 you can skip the roll for the fighter, unless you play critical miss on skill, and then be ready to explain and handle the failure in case of a roll 1.

if the consequence of failure are really harsh, say the failure of a check equal death, then warn the player, your character may die if he miss the jump. then let him roll If he want, nobody IRL will be hurt.

 

[DND_Reborn]

And what world is a 75% failure chance Moderate and 50% Easy? Even under stress, I wouldn't call anything I can fail half the time at EASY.

Yep, this goes back to my point. Drop the DCs by 5 each. Then Moderate (at DC 10 instead of 15) has a 45% chance to not succeed (without any bonus) and Easy (at DC 5) would only have a 20% to not succeed (again, with no bonuses...).

Or, change the descriptive names so Very Easy becomes Easy, Easy becomes Moderate, etc.

Either way, the result is the same.

As to your example of a fighter and (weakish) cleric making a jump. The fighter with STR 16 and proficiency +3 is +6 total, while the cleric with STR 12 and no proficiency is just +1 total. Whatever the DC (for the most part...), the fighter has a 25% higher chance of not failing.

Also, there is then the whole "well, someone who is good trying an Easy (RAW DC 10) task won't fail 45% of the time, because at +5 or likely better it would be 20% or less. But for me, that is also too high frankly.

So, I consider a DC 10 Medium, not Easy, and of course DC 15 is Hard, making DC 20 Very Hard, etc.

 

[Kinematics]

30 still makes sense as "nearly impossible", as long as expertise is excluded. A +5 from a stat, plus a +5 from proficiency bonus (level 13+) only succeeds on a nat 20. That definitely strikes me as "nearly impossible".

Something "easy", I'd put as something that an average commoner (or unskilled adventurer for a skill in a low stat) should be able to manage at least a good 75% of the time. With +0 from attributes and +2 from proficiency, DC 5 gives a 90% success rate. DC 8 would be a 75% success rate.

DC 8 works for the 80% success rate if you gauge it relative to a beginning adventurer with a 12 in a stat. Then increment by 20% per tier instead of 25% (I also think the +5 increment per difficulty level is too large). 60% at DC 12 (medium), 40% at DC 16 (hard), 20% at DC 20 (very hard), and 0% at DC 24.

For a primary stat (16) and +2 proficiency, you get a +5. You also get a +5 for a secondary stat (14) at level 5, with a +3 proficiency. At that, the above DCs become: DC 8 (90%), DC 12 (70%), DC 16 (50%), DC 20 (30%), and DC 24 (10%).

In general, medium would be >50% chance of success, while hard+ is <50% chance of success, for those early levels. At higher levels you'd start to have better than even odds of completing a hard task, which is entirely reasonable.

A primary stat of 20 at level 10 (+4 prof) gives you +9 total for a proficient skill. That makes easy tasks guaranteed, and medium tasks 90% likely to succeed. At level 17, with +6 prof, medium tasks are guaranteed, and hard tasks can be done 80% of the time.

For a primary attribute and a proficient skill, this progression does not seem unreasonable. At the same time, unproficient, low-attribute skills are still reasonably doable for easy-medium stuff. You don't have to avoid them like the plague.

So, charting it out :

Task Difficulty	DC
Easy	8
Medium	12
Hard	16
Very Hard	20
Herculean	24
Nearly Impossible	30

 

[Krachek]

The DM is giving the Fighter and Cleric the same DC.

My point is the choice of DC 10, DC 15, and DC 20 is not a trivial choice. But most DD fans treat it as trivial. So trivial you didn't even mention it.

A whole step is skipped.

An advice we can give to beginner DM is that if you ask for a check, then a PC may fail or succeed it. So be ready to handle both success and failure. If you can’t handle both, better don’t ask a check, and decide the outcome of the action.
Setting the DC don’t matter much, choosing 5, 10, 15 or 20 and even more won’t break the game. Make a reasonable evaluation and be comfortable with your choice, but be ready for a success or a failure.

 

[Minigiant]

An advice we can give to beginner DM is that if you ask for a check, then a PC may fail or succeed it. So be ready to handle both success and failure. If you can’t handle both, better don’t ask a check, and decide the outcome of the action.
Setting the DC don’t matter much, choosing 5, 10, 15 or 20 and even more won’t break the game. Make a reasonable evaluation and be comfortable with your choice, but be ready for a success or a failure.

It's not about single checks,

A DM who calls for DC 10 often will have PCs who succeed often and look like super heroes.
A DM who calls for DC 15 often will have PCs who fail often and look like amatuers.
A DM who calls for DC 20 often will have PCs who almost always fail and look like incompetents.

So if a DM makes a dungeon with 2 DC 15 traps, 1 DC 10 hazard, 1 DC 20 hazard, 3 DC lore checks, 1 DC 20 secret, a DC 15 Hidden door, a DC 15 obstacle.... the party of 4 will look like bumbling goofs.

 

[iserith]

My point is the 50/50 isn't what I consider to be easy. And some others might think so to.

So against is it supposed to be easy for a person with a 10 and no ability score.
Or is DC 10 supposed to be easy for a person with a 15 and proficiency in the roll?

Because here is the main rub.

A +2 does not have a significant change in the outcomes with a d20 roll. A +4 with advantage might, but a raw +2 doesn't. It takes a lot of rolls for a +2 to feel and be effective. But D&D pretends it does and uses language like it does. And this creates the meme of the cleric who doesn't know his own religion or the thief who can't pick locks.

This math and bonuses don't have to change. However at some point D&D has to man up an admit that a +2 doesn't matter as much as the big swings of the d20 or the 5 point gaps between DCs. And just picking stuff can have a DM pick the wrong DM for them.

That to me is missing to, how to choose. D&D tell the DM that they can choose and what they can choose. It doesn't inform them how to make the choice. Because picking a DC 10 vs a DC 20 is a big choice if failure or success is impactful.

Not to focus too much on your examples, but sometimes thieves can't pick locks. That's not really a problem in and of itself. (Plus, they could just take 10 times the normal amount of time to do it to automatically succeed, provided the task is not impossible.) Further, why is the DM asking the cleric to make a check to recall lore about their own religion? That seems like it shouldn't come up much at all.

I think you also underestimate how much players can and will boost their ability checks on the spot with Help, Working Together, guidance, Inspiration, bardic inspiration, and other sources of advantages and bonuses to which they have access. That they may sometimes have to reach to hit a higher DC is fine - that's just more incentive to spend their resources and come up with better approaches to goals.

The game works fine with DCs of 10, 15, or 20, and the DMG says as much. So leave the spreadsheets and graphs in math class and go with your gut, assigning advantage when appropriate. The DM won't always calibrate that exactly right, but there really is no "right" here and expecting a DM to make a perfect call every time is folly even if the DMG came with a statistical calculator.

What's more important in my view are not the DCs, but whether a DM should call for a roll at all and what impact that has on the game. The DMG explains this in The Role of the Dice, showing the upsides and downsides of each approach. Your examples remind me of a DM who may simply be asking for too many rolls, and the drawback here is that roleplaying can diminish if the players feel their decision matter less than what the dice say.

 

[Krachek]

It's not about single checks,

A DM who calls for DC 10 often will have PCs who succeed often and look like super heroes.
A DM who calls for DC 15 often will have PCs who fail often and look like amatuers.
A DM who calls for DC 20 often will have PCs who almost always fail and look like incompetents.

So if a DM makes a dungeon with 2 DC 15 traps, 1 DC 10 hazard, 1 DC 20 hazard, 3 DC lore checks, 1 DC 20 secret, a DC 15 Hidden door, a DC 15 obstacle.... the party of 4 will look like bumbling goofs.

PCs looking like amateurs, incompetents or goofs depend mainly on how the DM describe the action and the failure. At our table the DM often ask the players to describe himself how his PC fail the check, which often result in hilarious and funny moments. Players may choose to look goofy, but usually they prefer a better way to show their PCs.

PCs looking like super heroes, is often happening when the DM don’t make the difference between « nearly impossible » and « impossible ». For such super heroic action the DM may also consider luck to explain success.
Some soldier have survived fall from airplane during war, and in DnD Supernatural help, or other weird effects can change the nature of a check.
But the DM need to handle the success of a DC 30 check.

Again in both case the DM can choose to not ask a check. If the DM ask a check and hope deeply for an given result he should not ask a check.

 

[Minigiant]

Not to focus too much on your examples, but sometimes thieves can't pick locks. That's not really a problem in and of itself. (Plus, they could just take 10 times the normal amount of time to do it to automatically succeed, provided the task is not impossible.) Further, why is the DM asking the cleric to make a check to recall lore about their own religion? That seems like it shouldn't come up much at all.

I think you also underestimate how much players can and will boost their ability checks on the spot with Help, Working Together, guidance, Inspiration, bardic inspiration, and other sources of advantages and bonuses to which they have access. That they may sometimes have to reach to hit a higher DC is fine - that's just more incentive to spend their resources and come up with better approaches to goals.

The game works fine with DCs of 10, 15, or 20, and the DMG says as much. So leave the spreadsheets and graphs in math class and go with your gut, assigning advantage when appropriate. The DM won't always calibrate that exactly right, but there really is no "right" here and expecting a DM to make a perfect call every time is folly even if the DMG came with a statistical calculator.

What's more important in my view are not the DCs, but whether a DM should call for a roll at all and what impact that has on the game. The DMG explains this in The Role of the Dice, showing the upsides and downsides of each approach. Your examples remind me of a DM who may simply be asking for too many rolls, and the drawback here is that roleplaying can diminish if the players feel their decision matter less than what the dice say.

I've tried to explain the issue many times and you seems to be missing it. So I'm gonna quit here on that point.

And go back to Powertlifting being its own skill. Because POWAH!

 

[ph0rk]

D&D 5e DMG page 238: "If the only DCs you ever use are 10, 15, and 20, your game will run just fine."

So if for some reason that eludes me the DM is mystified about which DC to use for a given task with an uncertain outcome, they can stick with just those three, ignoring all others, and everything will work out.

And yet the DMG lists other DCs, because it is confus8ng and does not help DMs as much as it could.

 

[iserith]

And yet the DMG lists other DCs, because it is confus8ng and does not help DMs as much as it could.

Yes, it lists other DCs in case you want to use them, thereby supporting DMs who choose to use DCs beyond the 10 to 20 range. It even tells them how characters of various levels would do with those DCs. What else do you want?

 

[ph0rk]

Yes, it lists other DCs in case you want to use them, thereby supporting DMs who choose to use DCs beyond the 10 to 20 range. It even tells them how characters of various levels would do with those DCs. What else do you want?

“The Typical Difficulty Classes table shows the most common DCs.”

That’s in the SRD as well as in the basic rules.

What the paragraph that quote is from does not include (in either location, or in the DMG) is text warning DMs that stuff gets weird if they use some of the DCs the text just presented as most common.

If the system requires combing through the entirely of the DMG to look for a sentence that alters how the table of most common DCs is to be interpreted, that is a poorly put together guide for dungeons masters.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Yes it does and his argument is relevant to the reason why 5e's skills fail, they intentionally & willfully ignore the needs of a skill system along with basic logic. Without things like individual niches there is less room for drama & story. It's simply rote "I'm proficient clatter ☦dice roll☦ me too clatter ☦dice roll☦ and me clatter ☦dice roll☦ I'll help Can I cast guidance? You get to add ☦dice roll☦" and you get the equivalent of a lock & load montage but lacking any value because it's the equivalent of a single frame in a 24fps so the GM just gets pressured to skip it entirely or block some PCs the option of even trying. Sorry none of y'all are special enough to identify wood by smell.

Earlier in the thread someone even suggested simply denying all but an expertise player the option to use a skill as a reasonable solution to an overly broad skill made too valuable

Sorry, not interested in debating this one with you. Your "players are out to get me" perception of the social dynamics of play is simply not worth discussing.

 

[iserith]

“The Typical Difficulty Classes table shows the most common DCs.”

That’s in the SRD as well as in the basic rules.

What the paragraph that quote is from does not include (in either location, or in the DMG) is text warning DMs that stuff gets weird if they use some of the DCs the text just presented as most common.

If the system requires combing through the entirely of the DMG to look for a sentence that alters how the table of most common DCs is to be interpreted, that is a poorly put together guide for dungeons masters.

You're right, after all why would anyone wanting to run a game of D&D 5e read the chapter of the D&D 5e DMG entitled "Running the Game" which contains the very information that helps them run games?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

You're right, after all why would anyone wanting to run a game of D&D 5e read the chapter of the D&D 5e DMG entitled "Running the Game" which contains the very information that helps them run games?

I don't think that actually addresses the concern presented. "This book is here to guide you" is good; "this book has one INCREDIBLY CRITICAL sentence which is buried 250 pages in" is not. Even if it's in a chapter entitled, "Running the Game," a single ultra-critical sentence changing many if not most instances of a common DMing interaction reflects poorly on that book and its ability to "guide."

If it's important, it's worth saying more than once, or worth at least highlighting. If it's genuinely critical to a large portion of the experience, it absolutely should be said more than once or highlighted. That it isn't is bad organization. Especially when the thing that sentence modifies is actually in a different section altogether.