D&D 5E Some thoughts on skills.

[tetrasodium]

even less intuitive than what we have now.

I would go the opposite:
...
...
...
5: -5
6: -4
7: -3
8: -2
9: -1
10: +0
11: +1
12: +2
13: +3
14: +4
15: +5
...
...
...

I think you are missing the reason for the change back and are suggesting change for the sake of change
The key detail of the pre 3.x attribute bonus is that there is a very wide *0, range causing the extreme importance of attribute placement to unwind. - and- it lowers the bonus given to create room for the bonus to be moved elsewhere (ie skills & gear). Your suggestion does the reverse in every way by shrinking the dear zone of +0 & increasing the bonus players can expect to have from attributes.

 

[Reynard]

even less intuitive than what we have now.

I would go the opposite:
...
...
...
5: -5
6: -4
7: -3
8: -2
9: -1
10: +0
11: +1
12: +2
13: +3
14: +4
15: +5
...
...
...

Yeah but this buries the skill under a mountain of ability modifiers, which is the opposite of the intent.

 

[ph0rk]

One gripe I have with the existing system is ability+proficiency+expertise leads to DC creep which can lock out characters with medium ability scores and only proficiency from activities.

 

[Pedantic]

One gripe I have with the existing system is ability+proficiency+expertise leads to DC creep which can lock out characters with medium ability scores and only proficiency from activities.

A problem that is neatly solved by actually writing down the DCs ahead of time, and then allowing an expert to be an expert.

 

[ph0rk]

A problem that is neatly solved by actually writing down the DCs ahead of time, and then allowing an expert to be an expert.

Sure, but a “solution” that requires the DM to think a step ahead is bad design.

Expertise as a way to compensate for low ability makes a lot more sense to me than a way to have +15 to checks. The expertise concept seems to go against bounded accuracy when stacked on top of high ability.

 

[Pedantic]

Sure, but a “solution” that requires the DM to think a step ahead is bad design.

I'm not calling for DMs to draft DCs, I'm calling for the game to specify the DCs in the rules themselves.

Expertise as a way to compensate for low ability makes a lot more sense to me than a way to have +15 to checks. The expertise concept seems to go against bounded accuracy when stacked on top of high ability.

This does seem to be true. Modifying expertise to something less extreme is the easiest answer if preserving bounded accuracy is essential. I like the A5E expertise dice solution, that allows you to add an increasingly large bonus die from a d4 to d8 with some ability for rogues to push up to d12s instead of a flat bonus.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

IMO, DC creep is a DM issue, not a system issue. When rolls are even appropriate, a DM should set DCs with a living world in mind and, importantly, according to what the PC is actually doing to accomplish a given task; don't base the DC on what level the PCs are or what skill proficiencies they now have. All locked doors and chests don't suddenly become harder to open just because the PCs are higher tier, for example. Let them have their easy wins that they have earned. Now, it is true that the party might encounter the BBEG's secret document room which has a super-duper lock system with a very high DC - but, theoretically anyway, they might encounter that room at any level and the DC should remain the same whether they are attempting to use thieves' tools to open it at first tier or at fourth tier.

 

[ph0rk]

IMO, DC creep is a DM issue, not a system issue. When rolls are even appropriate, a DM should set DCs with a living world in mind and, importantly, according to what the PC is actually doing to accomplish a given task; don't base the DC on what level the PCs are or what skill proficiencies they now have. All locked doors and chests don't suddenly become harder to open just because the PCs are higher tier, for example. Let them have their easy wins that they have earned. Now, it is true that the party might encounter the BBEG's secret document room which has a super-duper lock system with a very high DC - but, theoretically anyway, they might encounter that room at any level and the DC should remain the same whether they are attempting to use thieves' tools to open it at first tier or at fourth tier.

It is a DM issue, but the system (and many published adventures) sets DMs up for it.

If there were multiple help boxes explaining that some PCs will nearly always succeed at some checks and that's good, there's be less issue. Instead like much of 5e it is vague or explained piecemeal and left up to DM discretion. So, the easy intuitive fix for the Rogue or Bard with a +14 persuasion is to increase DCs. The system leads DMs to this postion, I'd argue.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

It is a DM issue, but the system (and many published adventures) sets DMs up for it.

Yeah, the published adventures don't do a great job with DCs at all. They set a number and often do not take into account different approaches the PC might take. I've noticed that sometimes these checks, when failed, also can gate important outcomes that cause an awkward pause in an adventure without giving advice regarding, for instance, using progress with a setback.

If there were multiple help boxes explaining that some PCs will nearly always succeed at some checks and that's good, there's be less issue.

Agreed. In a past thread, some folks were arguing vehemently that the DMG was not for training new DMs - a position I don't get at all. A few help boxes in the text would make a world of difference.

Instead like much of 5e it is vague or explained piecemeal and left up to DM discretion. So, the easy intuitive fix for the Rogue or Bard with a +14 persuasion is to increase DCs. The system leads DMs to this postion, I'd argue.

A fair enough conclusion to draw.

 

[amethal]

IMO, DC creep is a DM issue, not a system issue. When rolls are even appropriate, a DM should set DCs with a living world in mind and, importantly, according to what the PC is actually doing to accomplish a given task; don't base the DC on what level the PCs are or what skill proficiencies they now have. All locked doors and chests don't suddenly become harder to open just because the PCs are higher tier, for example. Let them have their easy wins that they have earned. Now, it is true that the party might encounter the BBEG's secret document room which has a super-duper lock system with a very high DC - but, theoretically anyway, they might encounter that room at any level and the DC should remain the same whether they are attempting to use thieves' tools to open it at first tier or at fourth tier.

I agree with you about a living world. (Also, I don't know why some DMs seem to think having chests the PCs can't open, secret doors they can't find, lore and history they don't know, and cool items they can't identify or use, makes for a better game experience. )

However, I do think it is partly a system issue, since (in theory) it doesn't happen in Pathfinder because all* the DCs are written into the rules.

It seems, from looking at 5e conversions of Pathfinder adventures, that you get reasonable results if you take the Pathfinder DC (available for free at Archives of Nethys) and reduce it by 5.

Of course, no system can force the DM to actually use the rules in the first place. (I'm as guilty as anyone of estimating the DCs in Pathfinder rather than taking the time to look them up, but I've been playing the game for a long time so my estimates are usually close enough.)


*obviously not every possible DC, but all the ones that come up with any regularity and you can use them to extrapolate the rest