Do caster out of combat options matter?

[Rukelnikov]

No action was taken. Trying to attempt the climb as quickly as possible is not the same as taking precautions as trying to do so as quietly as possible. There are literally countless factors that could come on play once you slap a challenge on front of a group. That exactly why you can't rely of static DCs and standard actions. Like I said that hole in the ground is not a definitive consequence of failure until they decide that is.

A generic fighter does not make a generic check when it comes to actual gameplay. All those things we avoid for convenience it's hardly the silver bullet for declaring that the ability checks are not working. Ability check DC's are not a threshold that you place to form a challenge they're merely one mean that GM has in resolving an action.

If you can't tell me what that action is in it's totality in relationship with a given table then no I can't give you a DC or tell you that if you can potentially change. For all I know the fighters great great grandfather is the one who built the wall so maybe he has some inside or knowledge. maybe the party has enough rope to make the fighter have infinite attempts to get across. Maybe the party takes a few hours practicing on the part of the wall that isn't over the hole.

In any of your scenarios the DC, whatever it ends up being should be the same for everyone, and if the fighter has something that gives him an advantage on the task then he should have advantage on the roll, and if the advantage is large enough failure doesn't seem plausible then he shouldn't roll at all, but regardless the DC should be the same for everyone if stuff like ability boni and proficiency mechanics are made to matter.

[stoutstien]

In any of your scenarios the DC, whatever it ends up being should be the same for everyone, and if the fighter has something that gives him an advantage on the task then he should have advantage on the roll, and if the advantage is large enough failure doesn't seem plausible then he shouldn't roll at all, but regardless the DC should be the same for everyone if stuff like ability boni and proficiency mechanics are made to matter.

Are you seriously arguing that the fighter makes this check and then everybody makes an identical check right afterwards rather than addressing the actual challenge on hand?

That's exactly why you want to avoid turning setting DCs into some kind of formula rather than a method. The goal is not to roll a certain number, it's the overcome the actual scenario. This means rarely, if ever, will somebody make a check that's identical to the one before it because part of the basic rules of setting ability check is the outcome will change the situation so you can't just roll again regardless if it's the same person or somebody else.

That's why your scenario didn't pass the sniff test to begin with would likely not involve a check whatsoever.

[JNAProductions]

In any of your scenarios the DC, whatever it ends up being should be the same for everyone, and if the fighter has something that gives him an advantage on the task then he should have advantage on the roll, and if the advantage is large enough failure doesn't seem plausible then he shouldn't roll at all, but regardless the DC should be the same for everyone if stuff like ability boni and proficiency mechanics are made to matter.

The Fighter rolls no check, because they’re an Owlin and fly to the top.
The rest roll no checks because the Fighter drops a rope and they climb that, with the stronger party members carrying bulkier gear.

[Rukelnikov]

Are you seriously arguing that the fighter makes this check and then everybody makes an identical check right afterwards rather than addressing the actual challenge on hand?

That's exactly why you want to avoid turning setting DCs into some kind of formula rather than a method. The goal is not to roll a certain number, it's the overcome the actual scenario. This means rarely, if ever, will somebody make a check that's identical to the one before it because part of the basic rules of setting ability check is the outcome will change the situation so you can't just roll again regardless if it's the same person or somebody else.

That's why your scenario didn't pass the sniff test to begin with would likely not involve a check whatsoever.

If the fighter does nothing to change the scenario for the other characters, then yes they all roll the exact same roll, if the fighter while going leaves pitons in place, then the other will roll a different check, but if the first one after the pitons are place does nothing to in turn change the check for the third one, then the second and the third will roll the same because they are attempting the same task.

The Fighter rolls no check, because they’re an Owlin and fly to the top.
The rest roll no checks because the Fighter drops a rope and they climb that, with the stronger party members carrying bulkier gear.

And that's working as intended, if no roll is required because failure seems implausible, then no rolls are required.

[Kane0]

Replace Expertise with 'when you roll an ability check, you can choose to roll 2d10 instead of 1d20' ?

Edit: and lower DCs so the default is 10 or 12 instead of 15

[stoutstien]

If the fighter does nothing to change the scenario for the other characters, then yes they all roll the exact same roll, if the fighter while going leaves pitons in place, then the other will roll a different check, but if the first one after the pitons are place does nothing to in turn change the check for the third one, then the second and the third will roll the same because they are attempting the same task.

No they don't because you start the process all over and nothing guarantees they even get to make a roll to begin with. The existence of a check for one doesn't automatically transfer to everyone else.

Furthermore since the fighter has successfully transversed the wall, anyone else who follows would be making a attempt with first hand knowledge readily available.

The situation has changed but the individual ability of each character has not.

[Rukelnikov]

No they don't because you start the process all over and nothing guarantees they even get to make a roll to begin with. The existence of a check for one doesn't automatically transfer to everyone else.

Furthermore since the fighter has successfully transversed the wall, anyone else who follows would be making a attempt with first hand knowledge readily available.

The situation has changed but the individual ability of each character has not.

If the fighter does something, like pointing a path to others (which is not very dissimilar to making it easier by leaving pitons) then the ones that come after will have either advantage (in the case of pointing), or a lower DC (in the case of pitons), but as I said in the previous post, which's argument your sentence doesn't contradict btw, unless anyone does anything to change the situation afterwards, they all roll the same, because its the same task.

[stoutstien]

If the fighter does something, like pointing a path to others (which is not very dissimilar to making it easier by leaving pitons) then the ones that come after will have either advantage (in the case of pointing), or a lower DC (in the case of pitons), but as I said in the previous post, which's argument your sentence doesn't contradict btw, unless anyone does anything to change the situation afterwards, they all roll the same, because its the same task.

If they are all doing the same task it would be a group check to begin with assuming the goal is to get everybody across rather than just one person.

[Dr.Samurai]

I'm not sure what the solution is to be honest. On the one hand, I want there to be a chance of failure that is meaningful. On the other hand, I also want the character to feel like they are skilled at something and can do it consistently.

[stoutstien]

I'm not sure what the solution is to be honest. On the one hand, I want there to be a chance of failure that is meaningful. On the other hand, I also want the character to feel like they are skilled at something and can do it consistently.

It's about ratio IMO. The higher the frequency of a type of roll occurs the higher the rate of failure should. On the flip side the higher the consequences are the lower the fail rate should sit at.

That's why I think it important to let the players set their own terms when it comes to how much they are willing to risk rather than using anything static. No only doesn't prevent the "reach the number" mentality you give them the rope that could save or hang them.

[Rukelnikov]

If they are all doing the same task it would be a group check to begin with assuming the goal is to get everybody across rather than just one person.

In a group check everyone is still rolling individually against a DC, so it doesn't change the situation, its still one roll per character.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

I'm not sure what the solution is to be honest. On the one hand, I want there to be a chance of failure that is meaningful. On the other hand, I also want the character to feel like they are skilled at something and can do it consistently.

Multiple DCs help here, I think. The task is DC 15 (as a pure for-example), failure means no progress is made, failure by 10 or more means some sort of consequence (falling, alienating the person, whatever), success means the task is accomplished, success by 10 or more means the party gains some additional benefit (an extra clue, the task doesn't take as long, whatever). Maybe you shade that so the DC is 10 and failure by 5 or more gets the penalty and success by 10 or more gets the bonus. Whatever! Part of the issue, IMO, is that skills are unbalanced in outcome. Look at every Climb check in a published adventure. They have three outcomes: success, fail, catastrophic fail. There's no ultra success boy you are very good at this outcome available for most ability checks, and that flattens out the difference between the sorcerer who has high enough charisma to hit a DC 10 check 75% of the time and the bard who hits a DC 20 check 75% of the time. The bard is way better at the task, but that only affects what kind of tasks they can reasonably do, not how positive the outcomes are.

[stoutstien]

In a group check everyone is still rolling individually against a DC, so it doesn't change the situation, its still one roll per character.

Not it isn't because the goal is different therefore the check itself would also change.

Say you have a party of 5 that want to climb this wall. One automatically would pass, one would automatically fail, and three would fall in the middle of they just haphazardly attempted to smash the climb button, which you shouldn't allow to begin with. Since the auto fail and pass cancel our neither would need to roll so the middle three are the only ones that need to roll.

Now if they actually PLAY the game then the results would likely be a no roll because they are endless possibilities to avoid any check working together because a ramped wall over a hole is neither interesting nor inherently involves a challenge or conflict.

Treating the dice roll as the challenge is the root issue for most tables that feel that they are both inconsistent and uninteresting. Making it a static value cranks this up to 100 Not only is it just a boring number in your way, it isn't affected by your choices.

[Theodoxus]

Replace Expertise with 'when you roll an ability check, you can choose to roll 2d10 instead of 1d20' ?

Edit: and lower DCs so the default is 10 or 12 instead of 15

Changing Expertise to simple advantage caps skills at 31 (outside of magic) and more importantly, keeps the floor the same.

Expertise being 2xPB means you can't roll less than 5 provided your attribute is at least +0 at 1st level. Expertise is less about making the hard rolls and far more about never failing the easy ones - and that aspect increases as you level; +4 at 1st, +6 at 5th, +8 at 9th... that means things that have a 50/50 for untrained become auto success for the experts, which mirrors reality fairly well. (Good enough for a game, certainly.)

Regarding DC determination, I don't see WotC ever helping in that regard. It's firmly entrenched in Rulings not Rules - more than any other aspect of the game. As such, I don't think arguing over one interpretation or another is helpful. Post your opinions, sure, but I'd stop trying to 'prove yours is more correct'. Let the readers decide who's argument has more value for their specific table if it's something they hadn't put much thought into... but any more than that is just distraction.

[stoutstien]

Replace Expertise with 'when you roll an ability check, you can choose to roll 2d10 instead of 1d20' ?

Edit: and lower DCs so the default is 10 or 12 instead of 15

Worse on the top and bottom of the possible range of DCs which is where bonuses should be the most impactful. If you tighten the range to 5-15 it could work.

dice pools can work such as in WWN because the total range is much tighter and utilizes an approach that they aren't meant to come up very often. Downfall is the GM has to realize that shifting the DC now has weird jumps and flavors the jack of all trades approach do to diminishing returns.

[Aimeryan]

Regarding DC determination, I don't see WotC ever helping in that regard. It's firmly entrenched in Rulings not Rules - more than any other aspect of the game.

This is also two different points, albeit here they are related to each other in very tangled ways. 1) What is WotC likely to do? 2) What should WotC do from a non-WotC view point?

With the first point, WotC is likely to do whatever makes them the most amount of profit. To this end, slogans and 'three words' can be quite effective at causing people to not act in their best interest. In this case, 'Rulings not Rules' is right up there on that - WotC whole job is to make rules, they don't make rulings - you do. If they make less rules, they don't make more rulings - you do. If you take this to the extreme, they would handle you a blank piece of paper, ask for $50, and laugh all the while you recite to yourself 'Rulings not Rules'. If you don't take them to account for this, they'll take you to the bank.

On the second point, and you can see how this is related, WotC should make rules. It is literally what you buy the books for. What if you don't think they are good at it? Then don't buy the books. What if you think your rulings are better than their rules? Then... don't buy the books.

Now, there is a limit here; each additional rule they add is likely to be of lower quality than the last - fatigue, existing view points being fully utilised, constrictions placed by previous rules, etc. As such, there IS a point at which the addition of more rules are likely to fall below a valuation point at which you should pay more money for - even further it might be a detraction of value due to bloat. However, it should be noted that this is subject dependent; if there are few rules on something in particular then the addition of rules there are, all other things being equal, highly likely to be of greater value than adding rules elsewhere. As such, '[less rules] than any other aspect of the game' is actually in favour of more rules, not less.

Lastly, 'Rulings not Rules' is itself a nonsensical argument - rules do not prohibit rulings. It would be like saying 'Bananas not Cars' - it makes no sense.