Do caster out of combat options matter?

[Psyren]

This discussion makes me want to get away from the easy, medium, hard language entirely. It frames what the system (should) be doing in a very unhelpful way.

On my table, I bumped everything down by 5 (so very easy is 0, easy is 5, etc), and then added some extra difficulties a the top. And this is what I said about each category

Skill DCs
Very Easy (0): a task that is trivial; often an assumed part of another action. These tasks should not be rolled for, as there is no meaningful chance of failure.

Easy (5): tasks with a meaningful chance of failure for untrained attempts by someone with no particular talent for it (lacking proficiency and having a low associated ability score, respectively)

Medium (10): moderately difficult tasks; the average person would fail these tasks ~50% of the time. A trained, talented individual would consider these relatively difficult, failing ~20% of the time

Hard (15): the general limit of “beginner’s luck.” Depending on the skill in question, it would be inappropriate to allow untrained individuals (lacking proficiency) to even attempt this task (or something harder); they should be informed that they will automatically fail before rolling. At the DM’s discretion, certain tasks, like Strength checks, may be an exception to this rule; under extraordinary stress and pressure, someone might achieve something they wouldn’t under normal circumstances. But even that only goes so far, and shouldn’t apply at all to many tasks (like the Knowledge skills, picking a lock, or giving a creature first aid). If luck could play a large factor in the outcome, the DM may allow untrained characters to attempt. If particular knowledge, delicate or practiced movements, or “trade secrets” are highly applicable, don’t allow untrained characters to roll

Very Hard (20): the highest result an average untrained person could achieve; the metaphysical limit of beginner’s luck

Extreme (25): the kind of tasks that even experts are unlikely to succeed at

Nearly Impossible (30): the kind of tasks that stories are written about

===============

Edit -
I think I'll rename Very Easy to Trivial, Easy to Moderate, and Medium to Intermediate (and the rest the same)

I agree with this labeling and said as much in my survey, but I don't think it'll stick.

[Darth Credence]

I'm not stoutstien, but, in 5th edition there are three types of rolls, ability checks, saves, and attacks. Some rolls of each of these types get to add the character's proficiency modifier.

There is no such thing as a skill check. It simply does not happen in the rules.

There are ability checks where you get a bonus of being allowed to add your proficiency modifier because you have a relevant proficiency.

The baseline values for "how hard is this ability check" should be set based on the ability scores characters are likely to have. Any added bonus from proficiency is a bonus and should make success more likely rather than making you increase the DC to compensate. When figuring a DC, 15 is "the best in the world succeed at this on a roll of 10 or higher without a special bonus", because proficiency is a special bonus to an ability check, and this is an ability check, not a skill check.

Basically this.

Now if they didn't go and break this relatively good design principle left and right I would wager the complaints about ability checks would be limited to to those who would be better if not playing a open ended action resolution system to begin with.

Thanks for the clarification, that makes sense. I hadn't thought about it in those terms, but I think I end up in the same area by tying the checks to how I think it relates to a commoner. The idea that the best in the world at something would not have proficiency in it gives me a bit of heartburn, but that doesn't change how I would set a DC. For me, I don't think about the best - I think about how likely I think it should be for a commoner to do it. If a commoner will do it every time, DC 0. If they can do it half the time, DC 10 (should be 11, but, hey, round numbers). That makes natural talent worthwhile, but not controlling, I think - someone with a 20 strength but no proficiency is twice as likely as a commoner to do a medium-difficulty thing, but someone with strength who has practiced the thing could be good enough to not even need a roll, or someone without the strength but has practiced may do as well as the naturally talented.

[stoutstien]

I'm pretty sure you're right about this, but it makes me hate the skill/ability check system even more. A character with 20 in the relevant stat is 25 percentage points more likely to succeed than a commoner? That's ridiculous. Look at a cross-fit athlete, or a powerlifter. Their warmup is literally beyond the capabilities of most people. Them being only moderately more likely to succeed - with a significant chance the commoner just straight up outperforms them - in a test of strength is an absolute failure

That's because the DC isn't meant to be used to determine minimal or maximum capacity for a given task. They are situationally derived so you still have the ability to have the advanced athletes to do stuff consistently without fail that others would merely have a slim chance to achieve. It also allow tasks that are flat out impossible to be within reach for some.

If you try to map DCs to become static then you lose this ability and you add weight to the randomizer (dice) rather than the players choices in game.

That's why the flow is important when actions are declared so you don't end in a place where the results would be contraire to a tables agreed range of results.

[Skrum]

That's because the DC isn't meant to be used to determine minimal or maximum capacity for a given task. They are situationally derived so you still have the ability to have the advanced athletes to do stuff consistently without fail that others would merely have a slim chance to achieve. It also allow tasks that are flat out impossible to be within reach for some.

Isn't that back to making the DC relative to the character who's making the roll though? Which is really just ad-hoc making up for the fact that proficiency isn't a big enough bonus to properly encapsulate skills.

[Dr.Samurai]

What do people think of Mearls' suggestion to reduce DCs by 5?

[Darth Credence]

What do people think of Mearls' suggestion to reduce DCs by 5?

Did not know he suggested it, but do it already.

[stoutstien]

Isn't that back to making the DC relative to the character who's making the roll though? Which is really just ad-hoc making up for the fact that proficiency isn't a big enough bonus to properly encapsulate skills.

The DC has to be based on who is attempting it because there isn't a standard DC for anything. Each time a player chooses a potential action you run the cycle for that instance and that instance alone.

You first check if a roll is warranted, because it can't fail or it impossible, before you do anything else. This includes looking at setting a DC. This is determined by who, what, when, how. Only one of those are potentially derived by numbers on a sheet though if you have a consistent group it's easy to just base it on the character flat out. Big strong dude does big strong stuff more readily numbers aside.

Now if you decide that the outcome is uncertain*then* you look at your DC chart and derive a threshold but it's still based on the same things you used to check if the randomness was needed. GMs have two levers with the value and advantage/disadvantage. The later is great to use if you have a bunch of different individuals making similar checks in short secession.

It's ad hoc by design because both the action and outcome is not a set value. That's what open-ended resolution is in a nutshell. Once you try to fix one or the other into a hard number it gets wonky fast.

[Rukelnikov]

The DC has to be based on who is attempting it because there isn't a standard DC for anything. Each time a player chooses a potential action you run the cycle for that instance and that instance alone.

You first check if a roll is warranted, because it can't fail or it impossible, before you do anything else. This includes looking at setting a DC. This is determined by who, what, when, how. Only one of those are potentially derived by numbers on a sheet though if you have a consistent group it's easy to just base it on the character flat out. Big strong dude does big strong stuff more readily numbers aside.

Now if you decide that the outcome is uncertain*then* you look at your DC chart and derive a threshold but it's still based on the same things you used to check if the randomness was needed. GMs have two levers with the value and advantage/disadvantage. The later is great to use if you have a bunch of different individuals making similar checks in short secession.

It's ad hoc by design because both the action and outcome is not a set value. That's what open-ended resolution is in a nutshell. Once you try to fix one or the other into a hard number it gets wonky fast.

If everything's made up and points don't matter, why use Advantage/Disadvantage anyway? Just set the DC higher or lower.

The suggestion to the DM to give Adv/Disadv if they deem it favorable unfavorable for the character attempting the check, makes me think this line of reasoning for setting DCs is not what the PHB says at all.

[stoutstien]

If everything's made up and points don't matter, why use Advantage/Disadvantage anyway? Just set the DC higher or lower.

The suggestion to the DM to give Adv/Disadv if they deem it favorable unfavorable for the character attempting the check, makes me think this line of reasoning for setting DCs is not what the PHB says at all.

Advantage an disadvantage allows you to have variance without just cranking up the threshold which plays very nicely with the concept of limited bonuses and those bonuses are more important on the top and bottom end of challenges. Flat numbers have a tendency to run off the table regardless of the method used to generate its content. People who complain about swing in the die is usually caused by a GM not utilizing it. You could get away with DC 5 10 15 and adv/dis thanks to how it works out with the the ability score caps.

As for the rules this *is* the standard method. The DMG has alternative paths but if you are solely looking at the PHB then this break down is how it works.

[Skrum]

As for the rules this *is* the standard method. The DMG has alternative paths but if you are solely looking at the PHB then this break down is how it works.

And people wonder why I think the rogue is bad. A large portion of their design power is attached to "ask the DM to make it up for you on a case by case basis! It's not like they have anything better to do anyway"

[stoutstien]

And people wonder why I think the rogue is bad. A large portion of their design power is attached to "ask the DM to make it up for you on a case by case basis! It's not like they have anything better to do anyway"

That's the point of the entire genre. If you don't want players and GMs to make adjustments based on dessions from the character's perspective then you are just playing an overly complex boardgame that still takes adjudication to function.

It's intent above all else.

[Aimeryan]

As for the rules this *is* the standard method. The DMG has alternative paths but if you are solely looking at the PHB then this break down is how it works.

The rules are that the DM sets the DC. Yeah, thats it. It doesn't say anything about how the DM sets the DC, which is what leads to the skill system being so DM fiat - i.e., you have a better chance at doing a skill task by feeding your DM pizza rather than bumping character numbers, or being their romantic partner, or, having praised them recently, or, or, or.

So you're correct that at your table, with you as the DM, then how you want to it to work is how it works. Hopefully people carry on playing. Meanwhile, at another table? Not so much.

Skrum is correct - the bounded accuracy goal of the 5e system stymies the flat modifier that can be added, so that the d20 is always in play. This means that while a DC20 check can be made my an untrained mook with the luck of the dice, a DC20 check can also be failed by an uber expert hero. So, the max flat modifier has to be lower than 19 - and what do you know, look at the +17 that Expertise plus max stat of 20 gives (+18 isn't a possibility without changing the max stat to 22, so +17 here is literally right on point). The presence of Expertise stymies the flat modifier of Proficiency in turn, so that the max for non-Expertise plus stat is +11 - roughly half of the average result at max level, with the other half still being the d20. Level further stymies the flat modifier for progression sake, looking at +5 at level 1 with 16 stat for non-Expertise. Basically, Skrum is correct that Proficiency is not big enough to properly encapsulate skills for basically everyone that is not a Rogue or Bard.

Which is why I would advocate for the removal of Expertise, bump Proficiency up, and give Rogues and Bards something else in place.

[Darth Credence]

The DC has to be based on who is attempting it because there isn't a standard DC for anything. Each time a player chooses a potential action you run the cycle for that instance and that instance alone.

You first check if a roll is warranted, because it can't fail or it impossible, before you do anything else. This includes looking at setting a DC. This is determined by who, what, when, how. Only one of those are potentially derived by numbers on a sheet though if you have a consistent group it's easy to just base it on the character flat out. Big strong dude does big strong stuff more readily numbers aside.

Now if you decide that the outcome is uncertain*then* you look at your DC chart and derive a threshold but it's still based on the same things you used to check if the randomness was needed. GMs have two levers with the value and advantage/disadvantage. The later is great to use if you have a bunch of different individuals making similar checks in short secession.

It's ad hoc by design because both the action and outcome is not a set value. That's what open-ended resolution is in a nutshell. Once you try to fix one or the other into a hard number it gets wonky fast.

A party is exploring a dungeon, and arrive at a completely smooth wall, angled back towards them such that the angle from the ground they are on to the wall is about 75 degrees. The wall is high, and about halfway up it has transitioned to hanging over a chasm more than 500 feet deep. There are no visible handholds. The fighter in the group approaches and wants to climb it. You set a DC, the fighter rolls whatever stat you find appropriate, passes, and makes the climb. The cleric then says they want to climb the wall. Eventually, each member of the 13-member party, representing each of the official classes, is going to attempt it as well.

Is the DC the same for all of them? If not, what circumstance do you say is changing enough to change the DC, other than the class of the character attempting the climb?

[Theodoxus]

Which is why I would advocate for the removal of Expertise, bump Proficiency up, and give Rogues and Bards something else in place.

Simpler to just reduce the DCs across the board by 5, as has been expressed. (Or, remove Expertise, keeping everything the same, and grant Rogues and Bards a 5 point bonus.

I prefer the much more complex route of using 3d6 for skills, a base pass/fail of 10, with a graduated success the higher the roll.

A slightly less complex route is basically the same, with a d20 instead - so more swingy. But that was hashed out up thread, with the biggest complaint being what does a 'pass with setback look like' and what does a 'critical success' look like for skills that are more 'pass/fail' than graduated (climb, picking locks, whatever). Some are easier than others, but ultimately, I'd let the player making the roll decide - and then arbitrate that instead of me as DM being put on the spot for each kind of ability check.

[Skrum]

That's the point of the entire genre. If you don't want players and GMs to make adjustments based on dessions from the character's perspective then you are just playing an overly complex boardgame that still takes adjudication to function.

It's intent above all else.

I don't buy this. Abilities used in combat and spells are quite well defined in general. And then there's skills, which are apparently intended to be used in a rules-lite way. It's an awful clash, especially when some classes are heavy on defined powers (like the full spellcasters), and some classes are essentially working in a rules-lite way (rogue).

Which is why I would advocate for the removal of Expertise, bump Proficiency up, and give Rogues and Bards something else in place.

I don't disagree. People keep throwing out these great ideas and I have rethink what I want to do with my new skill system.

Changing things is addictive - I want to keep changing and changing and changing but then I end up with this gigantic mess of rules that appeals to my rules lawyer brain but looks nothing like 5e.

[Theodoxus]

I don't buy this. Abilities used in combat and spells are quite well defined in general. And then there's skills, which are apparently intended to be used in a rules-lite way. It's an awful clash, especially when some classes are heavy on defined powers (like the full spellcasters), and some classes are essentially working in a rules-lite way (rogue).

The difference being combat is 100% contested. So, you have static DCs (for the most part) called Armor Class and Saving Throws. If ability checks were unified across the board (so expanding outside of Strength or Dexterity checks for hitting enemies and Int/Wis/Cha checks for casting spells) you could adjust the mindset of what an ability check is.

Like, instead of saying 'It's a DC X to climb a tree' you'd have different types of trees with a 'Climbing saving throw' or making an Intelligence check to investigate a tome, the book might have an 'Investigation AC'. It's effectively the same, but changing the wording might grant players that are struggling with what an ability check outside of combat actually represents, their 'ah ha!' moment.

Changing things is addictive - I want to keep changing and changing and changing but then I end up with this gigantic mess of rules that appeals to my rules lawyer brain but looks nothing like 5e.

Same... my problem is my best ideas come up when I'm walking or driving... and I just don't have that facile a grasp on tech where I could Talk to Text... so then I try to remember what I wanted, and it sometimes blurs...

After the discussion on Soulknives and Psi-warriors and Aberrant minds - I'm in the (very slow) process of expanding psionics into my very techno-magical home world, and trying to determine the best way for psionics and magic to intermingle. And maybe changing Sorcerers to be the new Psion, using spell points instead of slots; plus maybe stealing from Colville's Talents book (but I HATE the name Talent, so that's dying in a fire - but Sorcerer (or Psion) works fine for the concept. And then, where does that leave Wizards (that I've already relegated to a casting style, not a class) so I might need to bring them back.... and then I was listening to a pod cast campaign and the idea of Mage-Knights came up which totally brought me back to Spheres of Power, and maybe changing the Artificer; the Armorer would make a great Mage-Knight... and yeah, gigantic mess of rules. Boom.

[Skrum]

Simpler to just reduce the DCs across the board by 5, as has been expressed. (Or, remove Expertise, keeping everything the same, and grant Rogues and Bards a 5 point bonus.

I prefer the much more complex route of using 3d6 for skills, a base pass/fail of 10, with a graduated success the higher the roll.

A slightly less complex route is basically the same, with a d20 instead - so more swingy. But that was hashed out up thread, with the biggest complaint being what does a 'pass with setback look like' and what does a 'critical success' look like for skills that are more 'pass/fail' than graduated (climb, picking locks, whatever). Some are easier than others, but ultimately, I'd let the player making the roll decide - and then arbitrate that instead of me as DM being put on the spot for each kind of ability check.

The idea that I've had (well, at least for now, will probably change in 10 minutes) is

Training: while all ability checks use one of the character's ability modifiers, in-game an ability check is a test of a character's training and experience as well as their raw physical or mental ability. This is represented by proficiency - the character has specialized training, practice, and experience that raises their chance of success. Likewise, not having the correct training (proficiency) can limit how successful the character can be - even in physical tests. A rock climber for instance isn't merely strong; they have years of training specific muscle groups and practicing their technique. Some checks in particular are strongly based on the what that character has trained for or read about, and natural talent doesn't mean that much at all.

Trained-only Skills: If a character doesn't have proficiency, they may only attempt checks with a DC of 10 or less for these checks -

Animal Handling
Arcana
History
Medicine
Nature
Religion
Survival

At the DM's discretion, this rule should also apply to other checks like Dex (Sleight of Hand) made to pick a lock, as that is mostly based on knowledge of the lock structure and careful manipulation of specialized tools.

For all other checks, characters suffer disadvantage on their check if the DC is above 10 and they do not have the associated proficiency. That is, if the DM calls for a Strength (athletics) check to climb a difficult wall, and the DC is 15, any character that doesn't have proficiency in athletics will have disadvantage on that check. This rule only applies to checks where proficiency in a skill is relevant - if for instance a character attempts to burst a chain (DC 20 Strength check), there is no associated proficiency so untrained characters wouldn't suffer disadvantage.

[JNAProductions]

The issue with that, to me at least, is I LIKE characters to be baseline competent. Hell, even baseline skilled.

Not saying that’s universal, but it’s how I feel. I’d rather err on the side of “Yes you can” than “No you can’t”

[stoutstien]

A party is exploring a dungeon, and arrive at a completely smooth wall, angled back towards them such that the angle from the ground they are on to the wall is about 75 degrees. The wall is high, and about halfway up it has transitioned to hanging over a chasm more than 500 feet deep. There are no visible handholds. The fighter in the group approaches and wants to climb it. You set a DC, the fighter rolls whatever stat you find appropriate, passes, and makes the climb. The cleric then says they want to climb the wall. Eventually, each member of the 13-member party, representing each of the official classes, is going to attempt it as well.

Is the DC the same for all of them? If not, what circumstance do you say is changing enough to change the DC, other than the class of the character attempting the climb?

If time or other factors is not an issue the as a group they could probably overcome it without touching the dice if the wall is possible to climb to start with.
Assuming the players also approach it from a in-game lens then they will also come up with a solution that isn't smashing there face into the PC sheet and hoping the dice fall in their favor.

[Rafaelfras]

A party is exploring a dungeon, and arrive at a completely smooth wall, angled back towards them such that the angle from the ground they are on to the wall is about 75 degrees. The wall is high, and about halfway up it has transitioned to hanging over a chasm more than 500 feet deep. There are no visible handholds. The fighter in the group approaches and wants to climb it. You set a DC, the fighter rolls whatever stat you find appropriate, passes, and makes the climb. The cleric then says they want to climb the wall. Eventually, each member of the 13-member party, representing each of the official classes, is going to attempt it as well.

Is the DC the same for all of them? If not, what circumstance do you say is changing enough to change the DC, other than the class of the character attempting the climb?

For me, it is. I begun 5th ed in 2015, I have never, ever changed the DC based on who was attempting.

Due to time I usually adapt adventures to my home Forgotten Realms setting, so I did Princes of the Apocalypse, then Storm King Thunder and now Crown of the Oathbreaker. I did a lot of custom stuff in then and always used the numbers suggested in those advetures to similar things, and the guidance on DMG when I am assigning DCs. The numbers never changed based on person, and I never had problems with then nor my players atempting the task. They usually use the success and fails to discover the DC because they know its the same for everyone. Depending how they engage the task they get advantage or disadvantage and I allow group checks as well speacially for stealth. I also follow the guidance that if there are no stakes or chance to fail, no roll is needed at all

[stoutstien]

The rules are that the DM sets the DC. Yeah, thats it. It doesn't say anything about how the DM sets the DC, which is what leads to the skill system being so DM fiat - i.e., you have a better chance at doing a skill task by feeding your DM pizza rather than bumping character numbers, or being their romantic partner, or, having praised them recently, or, or, or.

So you're correct that at your table, with you as the DM, then how you want to it to work is how it works. Hopefully people carry on playing. Meanwhile, at another table? Not so much.

Skrum is correct - the bounded accuracy goal of the 5e system stymies the flat modifier that can be added, so that the d20 is always in play. This means that while a DC20 check can be made my an untrained mook with the luck of the dice, a DC20 check can also be failed by an uber expert hero. So, the max flat modifier has to be lower than 19 - and what do you know, look at the +17 that Expertise plus max stat of 20 gives (+18 isn't a possibility without changing the max stat to 22, so +17 here is literally right on point). The presence of Expertise stymies the flat modifier of Proficiency in turn, so that the max for non-Expertise plus stat is +11 - roughly half of the average result at max level, with the other half still being the d20. Level further stymies the flat modifier for progression sake, looking at +5 at level 1 with 16 stat for non-Expertise. Basically, Skrum is correct that Proficiency is not big enough to properly encapsulate skills for basically everyone that is not a Rogue or Bard.

Which is why I would advocate for the removal of Expertise, bump Proficiency up, and give Rogues and Bards something else in place.

That's why they should print the numbers rather than trying to rely on flavor text to explain the difference between a DC 10 or 15. You don't need to know anything besides that as GM besides a baseline agreement with the table in what is considered the range of possibly.

So in reality the players are setting the DC if you are even halfheartedly shooting for consistently in the margins.

[Skrum]

The issue with that, to me at least, is I LIKE characters to be baseline competent. Hell, even baseline skilled.

Not saying that’s universal, but it’s how I feel. I’d rather err on the side of “Yes you can” than “No you can’t”

Agreed; nor do I want to step on people's general creativity. The "counterbalance" here is that DC 10 is a high DC. Most checks should be in the 8-10 range (an average person is ~55% likely to succeed). A character with a proficiency bonus of +3 and a +4 relevant ability score should often not have to roll as even a 1 would be a success.

Going above 10, like that's really hard stuff. I was thinking things like

DC 15
Climb an overhanging wall with handhold but no footholds, or a relatively smooth surface like a brick wall
Jump 10 ft farther or 5 ft higher than your base distance
Balance on a 2" wide slippery plank
Swim through stormy water

DC 20
Escape from manacles
Swim through a hurricane
Track someone that passed through a forest 2 days ago, and it snowed yesterday

[Theodoxus]

The idea that I've had (well, at least for now, will probably change in 10 minutes) is

Training: while all ability checks use one of the character's ability modifiers, in-game an ability check is a test of a character's training and experience as well as their raw physical or mental ability. This is represented by proficiency - the character has specialized training, practice, and experience that raises their chance of success. Likewise, not having the correct training (proficiency) can limit how successful the character can be - even in physical tests. A rock climber for instance isn't merely strong; they have years of training specific muscle groups and practicing their technique. Some checks in particular are strongly based on the what that character has trained for or read about, and natural talent doesn't mean that much at all.

Trained-only Skills: If a character doesn't have proficiency, they may only attempt checks with a DC of 10 or less for these checks -

Animal Handling
Arcana
History
Medicine
Nature
Religion
Survival

At the DM's discretion, this rule should also apply to other checks like Dex (Sleight of Hand) made to pick a lock, as that is mostly based on knowledge of the lock structure and careful manipulation of specialized tools.

For all other checks, characters suffer disadvantage on their check if the DC is above 10 and they do not have the associated proficiency. That is, if the DM calls for a Strength (athletics) check to climb a difficult wall, and the DC is 15, any character that doesn't have proficiency in athletics will have disadvantage on that check. This rule only applies to checks where proficiency in a skill is relevant - if for instance a character attempts to burst a chain (DC 20 Strength check), there is no associated proficiency so untrained characters wouldn't suffer disadvantage.

I don't see our two ideas being incongruous. It's just a matter of deciding where the breaking point is. What your proposal doesn't do is answer the question as to what is a DC 10 task, which I personally think is the biggest issue with ability checks in 5E. Since they're not codified and the guidance provided is problematic (given the number of threads and hijacked threads there are about skills) - cutting out the arbitrary and subjective nature of them is preferable (IMO, obviously).

I concede that the graduated success option does have it's own issues, it's certainly not perfect - but as long as the DM understands the purpose and is a bit more free with auto success and impossible tasks before even considering rolling, and the arbitration of results is collaborative with the table, I think it exemplifies what attribute checks represent in the fiction.

[GloatingSwine]

I don't see our two ideas being incongruous. It's just a matter of deciding where the breaking point is. What your proposal doesn't do is answer the question as to what is a DC 10 task, which I personally think is the biggest issue with ability checks in 5E. Since they're not codified and the guidance provided is problematic (given the number of threads and hijacked threads there are about skills) - cutting out the arbitrary and subjective nature of them is preferable (IMO, obviously).

I concede that the graduated success option does have it's own issues, it's certainly not perfect - but as long as the DM understands the purpose and is a bit more free with auto success and impossible tasks before even considering rolling, and the arbitration of results is collaborative with the table, I think it exemplifies what attribute checks represent in the fiction.

There's always going to be a certain amount of ruling in checks. I think the guidance could be improved somewhat though if it proceeded from the probabilities.

A DC10 task is something that someone with no particular training or aptitude but also no particular hindrance will succeed at half the time.

[Darth Credence]

If time or other factors is not an issue the as a group they could probably overcome it without touching the dice if the wall is possible to climb to start with.
Assuming the players also approach it from a in-game lens then they will also come up with a solution that isn't smashing there face into the PC sheet and hoping the dice fall in their favor.

I specifically went with a situation that was beyond what would be considered failure proof and require a roll. The basic rules call out that for a sheer or slippery cliff a roll is appropriate. I made it sloping out, so it is beyond sheer, and has no handholds. I made it so that the cliff ends up over a chasm by the time they are halfway up, so there would be a clear consequence for failure. And I asked a very simple question - does the DC change or not?

What I got in return was a complete avoidance of the question. You made a statement that a DC has to be done on a case-by-case basis because it's always different. I gave you a case where it isn't. You don't have to answer, of course - you can ignore the question, you can ignore me, whatever. But it makes me wonder - why would you respond to the question with a complete avoidance of it? What about the question makes you want to deflect it? You can, of course, ignore this question, or ignore me, or answer it, or respond while avoiding it.

For me, it is. I begun 5th ed in 2015, I have never, ever changed the DC based on who was attempting.

Due to time I usually adapt adventures to my home Forgotten Realms setting, so I did Princes of the Apocalypse, then Storm King Thunder and now Crown of the Oathbreaker. I did a lot of custom stuff in then and always used the numbers suggested in those advetures to similar things, and the guidance on DMG when I am assigning DCs. The numbers never changed based on person, and I never had problems with then nor my players atempting the task. They usually use the success and fails to discover the DC because they know its the same for everyone. Depending how they engage the task they get advantage or disadvantage and I allow group checks as well speacially for stealth. I also follow the guidance that if there are no stakes or chance to fail, no roll is needed at all

This is what I do as well for DCs.

[stoutstien]

I specifically went with a situation that was beyond what would be considered failure proof and require a roll. The basic rules call out that for a sheer or slippery cliff a roll is appropriate. I made it sloping out, so it is beyond sheer, and has no handholds. I made it so that the cliff ends up over a chasm by the time they are halfway up, so there would be a clear consequence for failure. And I asked a very simple question - does the DC change or not?

What I got in return was a complete avoidance of the question. You made a statement that a DC has to be done on a case-by-case basis because it's always different. I gave you a case where it isn't. You don't have to answer, of course - you can ignore the question, you can ignore me, whatever. But it makes me wonder - why would you respond to the question with a complete avoidance of it? What about the question makes you want to deflect it? You can, of course, ignore this question, or ignore me, or answer it, or respond while avoiding it.
.

It's not avoidances as it's an incomplete statement. If there no interesting consequences for failure it doesn't need a DC so trying to figure out one is unnecessary. A random hole isn't a consequence untill the players make it one. You can't ignore this for the convenience of forum speak because it's the largest factor in play.

"I climb it" isn't good enough because it only has the who and maybe the when and lacks the how and why. If they start hammering pitons and use a climbing kit you have an entirely different potential DC. Heck maybe they have a background in masonry or stonework.

So would the DC change? Very likely because the actions and intent behind the will.

[Darth Credence]

It's not avoidances as it's an incomplete statement. If there no interesting consequences for failure it doesn't need a DC so trying to figure out one is unnecessary. A random hole isn't a consequence untill the players make it one. You can't ignore this for the convenience of forum speak because it's the largest factor in play.

"I climb it" isn't good enough because it only has the who and maybe the when and lacks the how and why. If they start hammering pitons and use a climbing kit you have an entirely different potential DC. Heck maybe they have a background in masonry or stonework.

So would the DC change? Very likely because the actions and intent behind the will.

It is absolutely avoidance, as is this. There is a consequence for failure - falling down the 500' chasm. That you have decided to ignore that answers every question I had.

[Skrum]

I don't see our two ideas being incongruous. It's just a matter of deciding where the breaking point is. What your proposal doesn't do is answer the question as to what is a DC 10 task, which I personally think is the biggest issue with ability checks in 5E. Since they're not codified and the guidance provided is problematic (given the number of threads and hijacked threads there are about skills) - cutting out the arbitrary and subjective nature of them is preferable (IMO, obviously).

I concede that the graduated success option does have it's own issues, it's certainly not perfect - but as long as the DM understands the purpose and is a bit more free with auto success and impossible tasks before even considering rolling, and the arbitration of results is collaborative with the table, I think it exemplifies what attribute checks represent in the fiction.

This is exactly the main purpose of the Skill Revamp. Setting DCs. Give DMs (well, myself) and players some benchmarks to work with. Get away "Can you jump across the chasm with your base jump? Y/N If yes, hooray! If no, DC 15"

[stoutstien]

It is absolutely avoidance, as is this. There is a consequence for failure - falling down the 500' chasm. That you have decided to ignore that answers every question I had.

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.

[Aimeryan]

Simpler to just reduce the DCs across the board by 5, as has been expressed. (Or, remove Expertise, keeping everything the same, and grant Rogues and Bards a 5 point bonus.

That only changes the chance of success across the board, not where the success is coming from (i.e., the d20 vs proficiency in the skill as part of the character). It also doesn't really make sense because the DM sets the DC, so if the only change was to 'reduce the DC by 5' then this is effectively like saying 'Whatever number you come up with, now take 5 away from that' - you would still be lacking actual guidance to come up with the DC in the first place. At which point, if guidance was provided you would not then need to then take away 5 from it unless you disagreed with the guidance - which would then be an index to which we can all refer in order to say 'take away 5 from it' with any meaning.

These are two different points. The DCs absolutely should have guidance (i.e., not relative terms with nothing to relate to). The flat modifier for Proficiency should not be as curtailed as it is by Expertise existing.