Consequences of Variability

[strangebloke]

Most "normal dudes" cannot just climb any tree or wall or whatever else. A lot of trees don't have branches low enough to the ground to use like a ladder and you have to jump up to grab hold of one. Once you're up in the branches, climbing a tree is pretty easy unless it's one of those really enormous trees where branches on the same side can be 5 and 6 feet apart, but that is still a lot of physical work to climb such a tree and lift your bodyweight up over and over again while holding on. I would LOVE to see you attempt to climb a semi-grown pine tree and tell me how easy it is. They are all over my yard and the lowest branches are 10 to 15 feet off the ground for most of them. How are you going to shimmy up that trunk without exerting any effort and with 100% chance of success? Even with tools to make it easier, there's still a chance you aren't going to make it up there.

And as for climbing anything else... It varies. Why don't you go find one of those fake rock wall places where they attach ropes to people and let them climb those fake walls. Those things have very easy to grab handholds, made specifically to climb, and very few people still make it up them very far. Climbing is not that easy, it takes a lot of strength to do. Something like a ladder makes it as easy as it can be, but even going up a ladder far enough will wind most people.

Where did I say that anyone should be able to climb anything? All I'm saying is that, as an overweight guy with no proficiency in athletics and STR and CON 8, I can climb some trees with zero risk of failure. I can climb a knotted rope with zero risk of failure. I can even conquer those feared murder-machines known as ladders without falling to my death! This, to me, puts all of those things at most at DC -1.

A level one rogue with expertise in climbing and climbing tools is a pretty fair representation of an expert, yeah? So what kind of climb can an expert do without risk of failure? Craggy mountain cliffs? Short Palm trees? Those are all DC 5 or so. Maybe DC 10 if you think that a real-world expert would have a significant chance of falling to their death.

Everything beyond is the realm of heroes. The rogue at my table has a +13 to athletics with reliable talent. If he says that he wants to scale a 30 foot shear cliff face, he just does. No check required.

Guy at the gym fallacy in spades here.

And ALL OF THIS, is without considering carrying 100+ pounds of equipment in your backpack while you do it.

This is the real problem right here. Would you as a DM tell me that you raised the DC by 5 because I didn't explicitly tell you that I left my backpack on the ground? Because by default the DC is unknown to me. This is where those stupid. 'Well of course my pack was on the ground! But you didn't say that you left it down there!'

You're also massively underselling STR, by the way. A guy with 16 STR can 'easily destroy a small stone statue with his bare hands.' This is what the creators of 5e think is reasonable. It might be different at your table, but if I'm a new player at your table, I have no way of knowing that until I fall to my death while trying to get a better view.

As for the wizard with 8 strength jumping 8 feet, this is just another example of people not knowing or understanding the rules. High jump is 3 feet plus strength modifier. That wizard is only jumping 2 feet high.

Long Jump. I read the rules... did you?

Even a two foot jump is pretty impressive for a guy who can't walk without a cane.

As for his movement speed, yeah he isn't being slowed down by his age, but that is more of a gameplay mechanics issue. They would have to make an entire system of extra rules layered on top of what is already there to say how much movement speed you lose with age or lose with lower ability scores, etc etc or make some kind of check and have it determine how far you get and so on. 5e is supposed to be rules light, so it makes sense they left that out since it's a bit not needed and would undoubtedly bog the game down.

Or, here's a thought: the creators of the game didn't want to make your character's age a point of optimization. If we did as 3x did and had aging penalties/bonuses, every cleric and wizard in the game would be 70 and cranky as hell... as level one adventurers. If you want to play a feeble guy, talk to your DM, and just pointbuy down to 4-6. It's an utterly trivial fix. This fixes your movespeed as well if you're using encumbrance, since you'll basically always be encumbered.

But climbing? Yeah, you need to make a check for that unless you're going up a ladder. The DC is variable though based on the difficulty of the climb. Something with easy handholds would be anywhere from 5 to 10 and shouldn't be hard to make unless you are weaker than the average person.

Also, even if you roll a natural 1, it isn't an automatic failure on skill checks. A natural 1 with 16 strength and proficiency in athletics, even at level 1 is still a 6 athletics check meaning you can always succeed on the truly trivial stuff, even if you suck at rolling. So the game still reflects you being more successful if you are stronger, etc.

So if your lowest possible roll is higher than the DC, it should be handwaved and no point rolling since you will succeed, but otherwise, there is always a chance of messing up. Especially if you aren't an athletic person and not very strong, you aren't immune to falling and an expert at climbing.

I agree with all of this, as I said. 'Difficulty of the climb determines difficulty class of the climb' is a tautology. Side note: people die when they are killed. This doesn't offer me any guidance, though, on how difficult a ' DC 18' is. The DMG says 'moderate to difficult.' I disagree. DC 18 is the sort of thing that an expert can do less than 50% of the time.

[strangebloke]

I find this whole thread rather ludicrous. It's not as if 3.P didn't including a byline that said DM's should add modifiers as they see fit. 5e just does away with a silly baseline that almost always got modded to hell anyway. 5e trusts DMs to do whats right to tell their stories, which is a perfectly fine baseline assumption for a game. You join a game of D&D because you trust a DM to tell a good story. It's inherent in the game regardless if there is or isn't a chart of Difficulty Checks.

Ok...

I had a cleric who had to try four times, with magic aid, to climb onto a 5-foot box. How does this enhance the story?

Also, a point: By default, if, in 3.P the DM added modifiers because of who I was and/or what I was wearing, I knew about it. If you change the DC, as in 5e, by default I do not know about it.

[Slipperychicken]

5e could do with some more comprehensive guidelines about skill DCs. We don't need everything spelled out, just one or two examples at certain DC levels (i.e. 0,5,10,15,20,25,30) for each skill to ground us, then individual groups can take it from there.

This is the real problem right here. Would you as a DM tell me that you raised the DC by 5 because I didn't explicitly tell you that I left my backpack on the ground? Because by default the DC is unknown to me. This is where those stupid. 'Well of course my pack was on the ground! But you didn't say that you left it down there!'

Raising the DC wouldn't be correct anyway. A heavily-encumbered PC would have disadvantage, not a higher DC.

[Haldir]

Ok...

I had a cleric who had to try four times, with magic aid, to climb onto a 5-foot box. How does this enhance the story.

Also, a point: By default, if, in 3.P the DM added modifiers because of who I was and/or what I was wearing, I knew about it. If you change the DC, as in 5e, by default I do not know about it.

Sounds like a problem with a DM, not a problem with a game. Technically this GM broke the climbing rules by demanding a check for something that was trivial. It was not a difficult surface by any reasonable standard therefore there was no call for a check.

Edit, Just for Reference-

Originally Posted by PHB, pg 182
While climbing or swimming, each foot of movement costs 1 extra foot...unless the creature has a climbing or swimming speed. At the DM's option, climbing a slippery vertical surface or one with few handholds requires a successful Strength (Athletics) check.

Please do not use anecdotal evidence of DM's not following the rules as an argument against the rules. Bad form.

[DivisibleByZero]

5e could do with some more comprehensive guidelines about skill DCs. We don't need everything spelled out, just one or two examples at certain DC levels (i.e. 0,5,10,15,20,25,30) for each skill to ground us, then individual groups can take it from there.

The OP explains exactly why they didn't do this.

The most common argument given against the latter two is that it restricts the DM to running his campaign at a particular power level. Some campaigns are high fantasy, where climbing a cliff would be easy for the players. Others are lower power, where players might struggle to climb a stubborn tree.
<snip>
I believe I understand why WotC went with this approach. No fixed skill checks means that D&D 5e can be adapted to suit a wide variety of games.

Inconsequential (0)
Very Easy(5)
Easy(10)
Moderate(15)
Difficult(20)
Very Difficult(25)
Nearly Impossible(30)

That's plenty of guidance.
If you need more, the system is not at fault.

[strangebloke]

5e could do with some more comprehensive guidelines about skill DCs. We don't need everything spelled out, just one or two examples at certain DC levels (i.e. 0,5,10,15,20,25,30) for each skill to ground us, then individual groups can take it from there.

Raising the DC wouldn't be correct anyway. A heavily-encumbered PC would have disadvantage, not a higher DC.

Exactly my point. The DC should be PC agnostic. A cliff has a DC. It does not have a DC for Larry while he's wearing heavy armor. A player get's a modifier based on his character sheet. If a player interacts with the challenge in a weird way, you give advantage/disadvantage. Even spelling out this much in the DMG would be a huge help. I'm not saying this because I got screwed as a player... I'm saying this because it took me a lot of trial and error as a DM to get this down.

Sounds like a problem with a DM, not a problem with a game. Technically this GM broke the climbing rules by demanding a check for something that was trivial. It was not a difficult surface by any reasonable standard therefore there was no call for a check.

Edit, Just for Reference-



Please do not use anecdotal evidence of DM's not following the rules as an argument against the rules. Bad form.

It is against the rules. The point you quoted states 'at the DM's option.' Meaning that requiring any 'climb' check ever is actually optional. By default anything that can be climbed, can be climbed without a check. However, read through this thread. I'm arguing against folks that think that you should have checks for everything, including for things like apple trees and knotted ropes.

Inconsequential (0)
Very Easy(5)
Easy(10)
Moderate(15)
Difficult(20)
Very Difficult(25)
Nearly Impossible(30)

That's plenty of guidance.
If you need more, the system is not at fault.

No, because they never explicitly explain who the point of reference here is. Given the numbers they give, their point of reference is a 6th level PC with good stats and proficiency. A level 1 guy with proficiency and good stats would fail even the 'easy' check about 25% of the time. If my guy is a con-man, does it make sense that he can't consistently pull of an 'easy' bluff?

Also, I think that OP's argument is silly. Yes, its nice to be able to play different styles of game, whether 'heroic' or 'gritty.'
...isn't that why adventures come with suggested levels?

[Easy_Lee]

If this was purely a DM problem, then the skills issue wouldn't come up so much more often in 5e than it did in previous editions. We can argue over exactly why 5e has so many DMs who can't give reasonable, consistent Check DCs. But the fact remains that, for better or worse, this problem is more common now.

And just so we're clear, baselines for typical checks don't interfere with DMs who want to throw out those baselines. DMs already throw out any rules they don't like, anyway.

[Slipperychicken]

Inconsequential (0)
Very Easy(5)
Easy(10)
Moderate(15)
Difficult(20)
Very Difficult(25)
Nearly Impossible(30)

That's plenty of guidance.
If you need more, the system is not at fault.

So, it's my fault for not having extensive background knowledge of animal-training, medieval lockpicking, and stealing wallets?

[Easy_Lee]

So, it's my fault for not having extensive background knowledge of animal-training, medieval lockpicking, and stealing wallets?

This is it, in a nutshell. DMs who want to use their own DCs can do so. But DMs who want to go with the norm don't have a norm.

[DivisibleByZero]

No, because they never explicitly explain who the point of reference here is. Given the numbers they give, their point of reference is a 6th level PC with good stats and proficiency. A level 1 guy with proficiency and good stats would fail even the 'easy' check about 25% of the time. If my guy is a con-man, does it make sense that he can't consistently pull of an 'easy' bluff?

The point of reference is irrelevant. That the DM is consistent is the only thing that matters. That's the entire premise of the Gritty vs Heroic variability.

As for your 1st level con man.... 75% victory rate for a beginner with a little training is absolutely reasonable. 75% is a fairly good consistency rating.

[DanyBallon]

Like I told Pex many time (we agree to disagree on this topic ) we already have a framework that give us an example of wath an easy, medium, hard save is. While it may shift around the numbers presented in the example from a DM to another, if you create your character to be better in a skill than most, then whatever the skill DC, you will succeed more often (unless you always roll low) than other characters.

I.e. You have two 1st level character with the exact same ability score, and one is proficient in climbing, and one isn't. Now let say DM1 set DC for climbing a steep cliff at DC 15 and DM2 set the DC for the same cliff at DC 10 from his own IRL experience.
One thing for sure, characters having to roll vs the DC 10 will succeed more often than vs DC 15, on that we all agree, but still, the proficient character having a net +2 on his roll will succeed more often then the non-proficient character. And I believe this is all that matter when you try creating a character specialized in a skill, it's not about beating the hardest DC over and over, but being better than non-specialized characters at a given task. Once in a while a character might get lucky and do better than the expert on a few rolls, but in the long run, the expert will end up being the most reliable. In this regard, I think the designers did a great job with the skill system as it can be adapt to different game style, and to DM with different IRL experience, and/or opinion, and yet provide players a mean to make sure their character expertise matter whatever the DM.

[PhoenixPhyre]

So, it's my fault for not having extensive background knowledge of animal-training, medieval lockpicking, and stealing wallets?

The reference is not real life. It's the game world. Does the DM want animal training (which is not really covered by skills anyway), lockpicking, or stealing wallets (which is allowed only at DM's call by the text itself) to be very easy (succeed 80% of the time) for an untrained commoner? Easy (succeed 55% of the time), medium (succeed 30% of the time) or hard (succeed 5% of the time by pure luck)?

Note that the names are really based around people with a +4 modifier (either ability or proficiency or a combination). That puts easy checks at 75% success, medium at 50% success, and hard at 25% success. This makes very easy checks pointless--someone with a +4 will always succeed at them (no auto-failure on a 1). The DMG is clear that those are the only DCs needed. No need to try to distinguish a 14 from a 15. Assign one of the set [10, 15, 20] and go with it. That's it. There's nothing more to it.

Individual circumstances are handled by advantage or disadvantage (or by declaring autosuccess or autofailure in extreme cases). Not by modifiers to the DC. Stacking modifiers are only very rarely a thing in 5e. Please don't try to bring them back--it makes my poor little brain hurt.

[DivisibleByZero]

Like I told Pex many time (we agree to disagree on this topic ) we already have a framework that give us an example of wath an easy, medium, hard save is. While it may shift around the numbers presented in the example from a DM to another, if you create your character to be better in a skill than most, then whatever the skill DC, you will succeed more often (unless you always roll low) than other characters.

I.e. You have two 1st level character with the exact same ability score, and one is proficient in climbing, and one isn't. Now let say DM1 set DC for climbing a steep cliff at DC 15 and DM2 set the DC for the same cliff at DC 10 from his own IRL experience.
One thing for sure, characters having to roll vs the DC 10 will succeed more often than vs DC 15, on that we all agree, but still, the proficient character having a net +2 on his roll will succeed more often then the non-proficient character. And I believe this is all that matter when you try creating a character specialized in a skill, it's not about beating the hardest DC over and over, but being better than non-specialized characters at a given task. Once in a while a character might get lucky and do better than the expert on a few rolls, but in the long run, the expert will end up being the most reliable. In this regard, I think the designers did a great job with the skill system as it can be adapt to different game style, and to DM with different IRL experience, and/or opinion, and yet provide players a mean to make sure their character expertise matter whatever the DM.

Give this man a cookie.

[strangebloke]

The point of reference is irrelevant. That the DM is consistent is the only thing that matters. That's the entire premise of the Gritty vs Heroic variability.

As for your 1st level con man.... 75% victory rate for a beginner with a little training is absolutely reasonable. 75% is a fairly good consistency rating.

The point of reference does matter, because its tied to game stats. Speaking purely for me, I don't call a task 'easy' if a budding hero who's particularly good at it will fail at that task 1 in four times. I don't think its a convention of gritty campaigns to have everyone be 3-4th level PCs, right? So my con man isn't a beginner, he's a probably the best liar in a town of fifty people! Except, you know, he's only marginally better at making easy people believe simple lies than the town drunk, who has no proficiency and 6 CHA.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The point of reference does matter, because its tied to game stats. Speaking purely for me, I don't call a task 'easy' if a budding hero who's particularly good at it will fail at that task 1 in four times. I don't think its a convention of gritty campaigns to have everyone be 3-4th level PCs, right? So my con man isn't a beginner, he's a probably the best liar in a town of fifty people! Except, you know, he's only marginally better at making easy people believe simple lies than the town drunk, who has no proficiency and 6 CHA.

Marginally? If you have 16 CHA (a +3) and proficiency (+2), you're succeeding at a DC 10 check 80% of the time. That town drunk (at a total modifier of -2), is succeeding 35% of the time. You're better than double his ability. With bounded accuracy, you're pretty much polar opposites.

Oh, and a level 1 character is not an accomplished anything. He's definitionally a beginner. An apprentice. He's not an experienced conman with a string of successful cons under his belt. He's participated in one or two, maybe with some success.

So yes, your definition of easy is kinda off from what the game expects. Sorry.

Edit: Oh, and one other thing--truly easy checks (by your definition) just happen, no roll needed. If there isn't a meaningful chance of failure, your attempts auto-succeed. That's a bright-line DMG rule. Checks are for things where there is a meaningful chance of interesting failure. There's even a variant rule to let you succeed on all checks with DC < modifier - 5 (so for you, any DC 10 check). Ability checks should be as meaningful as saving throws, with consequences of similar magnitude that change the situation. If you're rolling them for other things, you're playing in an unsupported manner and can expect things to break.

[DivisibleByZero]

The point of reference does matter, because its tied to game stats. Speaking purely for me, I don't call a task 'easy' if a budding hero who's particularly good at it will fail at that task 1 in four times. I don't think its a convention of gritty campaigns to have everyone be 3-4th level PCs, right? So my con man isn't a beginner, he's a probably the best liar in a town of fifty people! Except, you know, he's only marginally better at making easy people believe simple lies than the town drunk, who has no proficiency and 6 CHA.

And so you're in the Heroic camp.
That's literally the only difference. You want an Heroic game, and you want the rules to make that possible.
But here's the thing....
Are you ready?






The rules ALREADY make that possible.

And here's the other thing....
Setting it the way that you personally want it would preclude anyone from being able to play a Gritty game without houseruling things.

But the way that the rules are now?
They allow BOTH types of game under the same rule set. They also allow any and all variations in between and beyond, and they do it all under the same rule set without any tweaking needed except for expectations. And those expectations can be handled with a simple conversation before the first session.

[Unoriginal]

The point of reference does matter, because its tied to game stats. Speaking purely for me, I don't call a task 'easy' if a budding hero who's particularly good at it will fail at that task 1 in four times. I don't think its a convention of gritty campaigns to have everyone be 3-4th level PCs, right? So my con man isn't a beginner, he's a probably the best liar in a town of fifty people! Except, you know, he's only marginally better at making easy people believe simple lies than the town drunk, who has no proficiency and 6 CHA.

Supposing a lvl 1 con ma with 16 Cha:

Town Drunk: -2

Con Man: +6

How is a difference of 40% "marginally better" ?

[strangebloke]

Like I told Pex many time (we agree to disagree on this topic ) we already have a framework that give us an example of wath an easy, medium, hard save is. While it may shift around the numbers presented in the example from a DM to another, if you create your character to be better in a skill than most, then whatever the skill DC, you will succeed more often (unless you always roll low) than other characters.

I.e. You have two 1st level character with the exact same ability score, and one is proficient in climbing, and one isn't. Now let say DM1 set DC for climbing a steep cliff at DC 15 and DM2 set the DC for the same cliff at DC 10 from his own IRL experience.
One thing for sure, characters having to roll vs the DC 10 will succeed more often than vs DC 15, on that we all agree, but still, the proficient character having a net +2 on his roll will succeed more often then the non-proficient character. And I believe this is all that matter when you try creating a character specialized in a skill, it's not about beating the hardest DC over and over, but being better than non-specialized characters at a given task. Once in a while a character might get lucky and do better than the expert on a few rolls, but in the long run, the expert will end up being the most reliable. In this regard, I think the designers did a great job with the skill system as it can be adapt to different game style, and to DM with different IRL experience, and/or opinion, and yet provide players a mean to make sure their character expertise matter whatever the DM.

It does matter though. Math time.

CH1: +4 to athletics
CH2: +0 to athletics

DM1: DC 15
DM2: DC 10
DM3: DC 20

CH1 at table of DM1: 50% chance.
CH2 at table of DM1: 30% chance.
CH1 at table of DM2: 75% chance.
CH2 at table of DM2: 55% chance.
CH1 at table of DM3: 25% chance.
CH2 at table of DM2: 5% chance.


Now, think through this a bit.

At DM1's table, that +4 increased my chances by a factor of 1.7
At DM2's table, that +4 increased my chances by a factor of 1.3
at DM3's table, that +4 increased my chances by a factor of 4!

So, the importance of getting proficiency in that skill might be much more or less depending on what my DM thinks constitutes a difficult climb. If my DM think's trees are generally around a 15, that's not something that's going to come up when I'm building my character. But if I'm building a DEX-based wood elf fighter, it... could be a serious issue. Unless a DM has a specific reason otherwise, he should just let people climb trees, since by RAW that's the way things are.

Expectation is important.

[DanyBallon]

The point of reference does matter, because its tied to game stats. Speaking purely for me, I don't call a task 'easy' if a budding hero who's particularly good at it will fail at that task 1 in four times. I don't think its a convention of gritty campaigns to have everyone be 3-4th level PCs, right? So my con man isn't a beginner, he's a probably the best liar in a town of fifty people! Except, you know, he's only marginally better at making easy people believe simple lies than the town drunk, who has no proficiency and 6 CHA.

Succeeding 75% of the time is in my opinion perfectly fine for an easy task, some time even the best con man can make a blunder and fail to bluff someone.

And as for your 1st level con man being marginally better than the town drunk, I think you are stretching it a bit.
Let say that you con man have CHA 16, and is proficient, if not expert, that's at least +5 vs -2 for the CHA 6 non-proficient drunk, a net +7 difference between the two, that's huge on a d20 roll!!!

[PhoenixPhyre]

If my DM think's trees are generally around a 15, that's not something that's going to come up when I'm building my character. But if I'm building a DEX-based wood elf fighter, it... could be a serious issue. Unless a DM has a specific reason otherwise, he should just let people climb trees, since by RAW that's the way things are.

If your DM thinks that trees are generally DC 15...I don't know what to say. Children (not exactly the strongest creatures) are notorious for climbing trees. That would impose failure on the majority of tree-climbing attempts by everyone except STR-focused characters or those with proficiency/expertise in athletics.

I definitely agree with the 3rd sentence. Them's the rules, just as important as the RAW for hiding or attacks.

Note that the verbiage "at the DM's discretion" is tied to giving a check at all. The default for climbing anything is no check. For particularly difficult things, the DM can (but is not required to) impose a check. There is a strong default for no check for climbing whatsoever. Same with swimming. Or jumping (up to the max distances set out).

[Eric Diaz]

[B]In short, choosing to run a mundane rather than heroic game is as significant a decision as deciding to house rule plate armor or other fixed effects. It may not seem like it, but it has just as big of an effect on the game.

Consider also that skill checks are the main area of the game where this sort of variability exists. Spells have fixed effects, attacks do a fixed amount of damage, and most features work exactly as they're written. It's only skills where we have no idea where the power level will be until we ask the DM.

I believe I understand why WotC went with this approach. No fixed skill checks means that D&D 5e can be adapted to suit a wide variety of games.

However, the more variability you add, the less of a game you have left.

In conclusion, I don't think that variability was the right decision. Players need some idea what the rules of the world are like when they decide to play D&D 5e. Otherwise, we aren't all playing the same game.

I think you make some great points and agree with some of your premises, just not the conclusion.

We can never be "playing the same game", because of different settings and GMs among other things.

Settings: if I'm playing Dark Sun, where food and water are scarce, am I justified in changing the rules? Or does the outlander background now becomes OP?

GMs: with loose DCs, GMs can set the DCs to the intended "tone". Say, one GM wants high-level PCs to climb dangerous mountains under heavy rain, so he sets the climb DC at 20-25, and such challenges happen often. Other GM wants it to be near impossible, so the DC is 30, but the situation never comes up. The only thing that would be a problem, I think, is if the PCs are required to make such climb and the DC is 30.

If we are using the same DCs, but my dungeons have slippery DC 30 walls that the players never manage to climb, and your dungeons have rough DC 15 that PCs easily defeat, we are not really "playing the same game".

With that said, I think 5e could choose one way over the other. It would gain consistency, it would loose flexibility. There is no win-win that I can see.

Also, some issues are less obvious than others. Take this for example:

"If climbing is difficult, spider climb, fly, levitate, and so on become more powerful. If swimming is easy, water walk and aquatic transformations become weaker. If persuasion checks rarely work, then spells like Command, Suggestion, dominate effects, or even Friends become more powerful. If stealth is easy, then Invisibility and Pass Without Trace are weaker."

This is true, but what "climbing is difficult" means? It means the DC is high for the PCs. But if 5e had an explicit rule where "climbing a common tree is DC 5", and I put a slippery tree in my game (DC 20), climbing would be more difficult in MY games - even if we are using the exact same DCs for the exact same things!

"Impossible to swim in full plate" is not realistic "per se", but I'd assume some limitation to be expected (disadvantage seem more reasonable, or double encumbrance while swimming etc). "Compound the effects of difficult terrain when someone is wearing plate" seems unjustified, because the rules ALREADY take those things in consideration. Likewise, "impose penalties on their dexterity checks, and you make it impossible for them to comfortably fire a bow because of the gauntlets" have no basis at all in 5e.

Etc.

EDIT: haven't read the whole thread, but am reading it now and it seems more people might have made a similar point, so forgive me for being repetitive.

[DanyBallon]

It does matter though. Math time.

CH1: +4 to athletics
CH2: +0 to athletics

DM1: DC 15
DM2: DC 10
DM3: DC 20

CH1 at table of DM1: 50% chance.
CH2 at table of DM1: 30% chance.
CH1 at table of DM2: 75% chance.
CH2 at table of DM2: 55% chance.
CH1 at table of DM3: 25% chance.
CH2 at table of DM2: 5% chance.


Now, think through this a bit.

At DM1's table, that +4 increased my chances by a factor of 1.7
At DM2's table, that +4 increased my chances by a factor of 1.3
at DM3's table, that +4 increased my chances by a factor of 4!

So, the importance of getting proficiency in that skill might be much more or less depending on what my DM thinks constitutes a difficult climb. If my DM think's trees are generally around a 15, that's not something that's going to come up when I'm building my character. But if I'm building a DEX-based wood elf fighter, it... could be a serious issue. Unless a DM has a specific reason otherwise, he should just let people climb trees, since by RAW that's the way things are.

Expectation is important.

Is your character better than a non-proficien one? yes?! then the design goal is achieved! How much you increase your chance doesn't really matter. If on the other hand, your math would show that you don't increase your chance in a given situation, then the system would have been proven flawed, but it isn't

[strangebloke]

And so you're in the Heroic camp.
That's literally the only difference. You want an Heroic game, and you want the rules to make that possible.
But here's the thing....
Are you ready?






The rules ALREADY make that possible.

And here's the other thing....
Setting it the way that you personally want it would preclude anyone from being able to play a Gritty game without houseruling things.

But the way that the rules are now?
They allow BOTH types of game under the same rule set. They also allow any and all variations in between and beyond, and they do it all under the same rule set without any tweaking needed except for expectations. And those expectations can be handled with a simple conversation before the first session.

You could play either style if we had fixed DCs. You'd just play high-level if you wanted heroic and low-level if you wanted gritty. That's already the way that things are, assuming that you're using the Monster Manual. I'm just trying to imagine a 'heroic' game where you fight bullywugs and goblins for the first three encounters. Or a gritty game where the PCs can't climb a tree but can teleport 9/10ths of the way around the world, fly, and kill Lichs with orbital smite towers.

RE: the town drunk. I was wrong. Marginally was the wrong word. But think about if this was real-life: One guy is a trained (even if he's something of a novice) liar, and he's quite talented. The other guy is a slovenly idiot who is barely credible when telling the truth... and one of them is only twice as likely to succeed.

[Unoriginal]

I think the biggest consequence for variability is that people will make a lot of threads about it on internet forums.

[DivisibleByZero]

You could play either style if we had fixed DCs. You'd just play high-level if you wanted heroic and low-level if you wanted gritty.

Fail.
You're basically saying that you can't play a Gritty high level game, and that you can't play an Heroic low level game. But the thing is, under the current rules, you absolutely can. With your proposed changes of adding set DCs, that's no longer true without houseruling.
The current rules are better without those set DCs (and using only guidelines) because they allow all of those types of play at any level.

[strangebloke]

Is your character better than a non-proficien one? yes?! then the design goal is achieved! How much you increase your chance doesn't really matter. If on the other hand, your math would show that you don't increase your chance in a given situation, then the system would have been proven flawed, but it isn't

Except that training in one skill versus another represents opportunity cost. If my DM makes stealth really easy, but makes sleight of hand really hard, then expertise in sleight of hand became much more important than expertise in stealth for my sneaky character.

If my sneaky rogue is only a tiny bit better at stealth than the clumsy fighter, such that he can make a stealth check I can't 1/4 times, that materially diminishes the value of my class features.

[Slipperychicken]

The reference is not real life. It's the game world. Does the DM want animal training (which is not really covered by skills anyway), lockpicking, or stealing wallets (which is allowed only at DM's call by the text itself) to be very easy (succeed 80% of the time) for an untrained commoner? Easy (succeed 55% of the time), medium (succeed 30% of the time) or hard (succeed 5% of the time by pure luck)?

Suppose that I am the DM for an ongoing 5e game. I wrote the setting we're playing in (it is similar to the "sword and sorcery" style seen in the Conan universe). A player-character hiding behind a nearby pillar wants to steal the coin-purse of a lone orc guard, in a reasonably well-lit spacious dungeon where the guard has not spotted the PCs yet. For pride's sake he wants to avoid notice, but as long as he nabs the purse, he is unconcerned with being caught (after all he can simply kill the guard if noticed). My player and I in real life are prosperous, tax-paying office workers who are totally clueless regarding petty crime; neither of us know the probability for any person to nick a wallet, trained or not.

But I want to assign a realistic DC to the task in an impartial manner, without tipping the scales any further than the situation itself dictates. I want the facts of the situation to decide the difficulty, not my current mood or my intense desire to see the player fail (the freeloading bastard still owes me $11 for his food from last game).

So how do I from that position decide what DC to set for the task? I know I could just put down 15 if I don't feel like thinking, or try to reverse-engineer a probability, but at the moment I want to be as impartial as possible.

[Eric Diaz]

Think of it this way: playing a paladin or cleric in a campaign that has a lot of undead versus a campaign that has fewer undead also causes variability. We wouldn't want 5e to make all these choices for us. Of course, we can fit the rules to the setting; I just created 10 house rules to adapt 5e to Dark Sun, for example, because I wouldn't use the rules as written.

Also, I completely agree DCs (and all rules, really) should certainly be clear and consistent within a single campaign.

[Sigreid]

Suppose that I am the DM for an ongoing 5e game. I wrote the setting we're playing in (it is similar to the "sword and sorcery" style seen in the Conan universe). A player-character hiding behind a nearby pillar wants to steal the coin-purse of a lone orc guard, in a reasonably well-lit spacious dungeon where the guard has not spotted the PCs yet. For pride's sake he wants to avoid notice, but as long as he nabs the purse, he is unconcerned with being caught (after all he can simply kill the guard if noticed). My player and I in real life are prosperous, tax-paying office workers who are totally clueless regarding petty crime; neither of us know the probability for any person to nick a wallet, trained or not.

But I want to assign a realistic DC to the task in an impartial manner, without tipping the scales any further than the situation itself dictates. I want the facts of the situation to decide the difficulty, not my current mood or my intense desire to see the player fail (the freeloading bastard still owes me $11 for his food from last game).

So how do I from that position decide what DC to set for the task? I know I could just put down 15 if I don't feel like thinking, or try to reverse-engineer a probability, but at the moment I want to be as impartial as possible.

For this specific example I would set the DC to the target's passive perception. I would give disadvantage to the pick pocket roll as they are described as being alone in a well lit area. I would permit the rogue to remove the disadvantage by making a successful stealth roll, again against the passive perception of the target. If the rogue chose to try the stealth roll a failed roll would eliminate the chance for a pick pocket roll as he was not only spotted, but spotted acting suspicious. While I wouldn't give the DC to the rogue player he would have the rest of this information up front, and be told how alert the target appears.

[Unoriginal]

Suppose that I am the DM for an ongoing 5e game. I wrote the setting we're playing in (it is similar to the "sword and sorcery" style seen in the Conan universe). A player-character hiding behind a nearby pillar wants to steal the coin-purse of a lone orc guard, in a reasonably well-lit spacious dungeon where the guard has not spotted the PCs yet. For pride's sake he wants to avoid notice, but as long as he nabs the purse, he is unconcerned with being caught (after all he can simply kill the guard if noticed). My player and I in real life are prosperous, tax-paying office workers who are totally clueless regarding petty crime; neither of us know the probability for any person to nick a wallet, trained or not.

But I want to assign a realistic DC to the task in an impartial manner, without tipping the scales any further than the situation itself dictates. I want the facts of the situation to decide the difficulty, not my current mood or my intense desire to see the player fail (the freeloading bastard still owes me $11 for his food from last game).

So how do I from that position decide what DC to set for the task? I know I could just put down 15 if I don't feel like thinking, or try to reverse-engineer a probability, but at the moment I want to be as impartial as possible.

How do you want to be realistic about something involving an orc?