Originally Posted by 1varangian
Ability checks with a d20 is a bad concept in almost all cases. Even worse than skill checks. A character with 8 in an ability score can succeed while someone with 20 in the same stat can fail. That's only a 30% shift in success rate between the absolute worst and best.

I can think of a certain burning building in EA where you need to pass a DC10 Strength check to bash the front door in.

It's entirely possible Lae'zel with 18 Strength fails and Gale with 8 Strength succeeds. How do you even begin to explain something like that in the context of BG3? In PnP the DM could just make up a shaky explanation that the fighter slips and the frail wizard finds a weak spot near the hinges and just sort of leans against the door to bring it down. A video game can't even do that. It just makes no sense. A physically weak 8 Str character should never succeed in a strength feat if a character as strong as an ogre, a freaking giant, with 18 Str can fail. This is not a question of probability. It's a question of something you can or can't do.

So why not use thresholds for this kind of stuff? Like Pillars of Eternity does, proabably for this very reason.

Skill checks are almost just as bad as plain ability checks, because an additional +2 isn't going to make a big difference either.

These checks are the biggest flaw in 5e imo and I hope the next edition fixes this.

I quite like the idea of using thresholds instead of dice rolls for skill checks. I've written in other posts about how I dislike the "tyranny of the d20", especially as applied to non-combat tasks.