I'm new to DnD and have a question about proficiency

but where is the distinction? Do you need proficiency with a tool before you can use it?

Like if the wizard of the party wants to hammer a nail into a board to close a create does he need proficiency with tools?

Also another question, if a player wants to roll on a skill they don't need proficiency in it, right? Proficiency just means that this skill gets their proficiency bonus. A dumb fighter can still try to roll on Arcana for example?

That's gotta be Incase!

Wonder what recognizing that says about me...

You fell victim to one of the classic blunders. The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less known is this; never post an image more interesting than the actual content of your post!

Ahahahaah-hahah-ha ha haah!

(But seriously, profession (sailor) should cover your ass on that point)

I know exactly where that pic is from OP and you should be ashamed

It depends. The players don't get to choose when they get to roll skill checks though, it's the DM who decides if it's appropriate to have one. Or the DM could just decide that there's no need for a skill check since your character is proficient in something.

>Like if the wizard of the party wants to hammer a nail into a board to close a create does he need proficiency with tools?
No, that's stupid.

I would think of it this way: A person without proficiency in naval shennanigans would be able to attempt to pilot a ship, probably using Survival or Dex or something- but wouldn't be able to add their proficiency bonus to it. Just like your wizard could try to do some carpentry, but would just have to eschew his proficiency bonus at it, whereas the fighter who used to be a carpenter's apprentice would be able to add his proficiency bonus to such a check.

>Like if the wizard of the party wants to hammer a nail into a board to close a create does he need proficiency with tools?
>No, that's stupid.
idk, there are plenty of people who hit their own thumb when trying to hammer a nail. Would you say that they didn't have proficiency with carpentry tools? Or just perhaps that they botched their skill roll?

okay. But what if there is a thief character that doesn't have proficiency with a lockpick?

Can they acquire that proficiency by learning it?

As a GM how do you exactly handle situations in which players want to acquire proficiency in something during the adventure?

Can I create a Master Thief NPC that can teach the player character how to use a lockpick? Does this upset the game balance?

This is explained in the rulebook, if you really need me to I can look up the page but I'd recommend just taking another look through it.

But the short of it is that if you're skilled in vehicles, it means you can add your proficency bonus when you're making a check related to that vehicle within reason (the DM's reason). It's a lot looser of a ruleset than skills and tools because it's such a large grouping of things that defining all of it individually would cause the exact stat bloat (AKA 3.5) that 5E tries to avoid. You'll have to decide DC's and checks on the fly for the most part.

Some examples:
>Your ship has been blown off course during the night
Righting yourself could require a medium INT check to consult a map/chart. A sailor would get a prof bonus to this.
Or a more difficult WIS check to identify where you are based on something more intuitive like the feel of the wind and water currents or direction of migrating birds.

>Your river barge has hit difficult rapids
That would probably be a STR check to control the rudder against violent currents.
If the ship is rocking like crazy you could make keeping your feet a DEX check.

Basically proficiency means that anything a sailor would have MORE experience doing, they will have an advantage towards doing compared to other characters. Additionally if it's something ONLY a sailor would even know how to do, then only someone with that proficiency should be able to do it, at least without disadvantage.

It would allow you to add your characters proficiency bonus to checks related to the use of that vehicle. I would rule it a flat ability check or a skill check if the skill was relevant, such as survival.

That might work for a simple sailboat, but a large vessel requires specialized knowledge you simply can't acquire outside of training. Same with Alchemists Kit or Brewing Tools. I wouldn't let a player roll at all using those tools if they aren't proficient.

Unless they were doing something REALLY basic.

okay, so I'm allowed to tell players "add your proficiency check to this roll" even if they roll on a skill that isn't specified in their background?

Yup, that is totally InCase. More specifically one of the, uh, femboi cheerleader drawings. It is pretty good on artistic merits alone, although I am more for stuff like Alfie.

That you are among the enlightened? Jokes aside, I see that you are a man of culture as well.

Training is explicitly a downtime activity. You can take time and $$$ to gain proficiency in a tool, instrument or language (languages take a looong time).

I thought it was more like "if you don't have proficiency in carpenter's tools you're not allowed to hammer any nails".

Some people trip while walking down stairs, do you have skill checks for that?

>Can they acquire that proficiency by learning it?
Yeah, it takes something like 200 days if you go by the book. You could let a master thief NPC teach them faster than that, and I doubt it would upset the game balance. It's a rather minor skill, at least when a wizard can open locks with a spell.

Uh, I know Incase but I don't recognize OP's particular picture. What's this about a femboi cheerleader?

>Some people trip while walking down stairs, do you have skill checks for that?
I'm pretty sure 3.5 had "Balance" as a skill, which then got folded into Acrobatics in Pathfinder, 4E and 5E.

>no, it's 5th edition DnD.

There's your mistake.

you said you would let them roll a strength check.

What is the distinction between an ability check and a saving throw? They seem to be virtually the same.

I'd say background proficiencies that do not depend on stats or rolls purely for the sake of fluff can be used for the most basic of things.

Anything of real importance, such as navigating the ship through a storm would IMO require that this PC has the generalised skill block, which 5e so graciously has turned into professions.

I prefer more overarching skill groups, since skill bloat can be a real issue.

That's fine for game balance. The time money and effort one character spends learning to lockpick, another character could spend learning something else. Usually all major skills and abilities are gained at level up, but if it's appropriate there's nothing wrong with letting characters learn things as long as they actually spend resources on it.

If a player just says that he's teaching himself to lockpick in the background and expects to get a free skill without actually roleplaying anything then that's meta and gamebreaking. As long as the player is SPENDING something it's fine for him to GET something from it.

A good rule of thumb and something I usually do is that if a character wants to add something significant to their skillset, there should be at least one actual roleplayed challenge involved. Either some short quest to get an item, find a person, put down an assailant or something. If you're learning lockpicking maybe the master has you steal something for him halfway through, or you need to spring someone from jail. etc.

Tl;dr: Characters can learn things by putting in the time and effort as long as the PLAYERS also put in the time and effort.

how do I determine the time it takes to learn something?

I know that the GM's word is basically law when it comes to these things but I don't want to be lenient or unfair to the players.

Also, if they want to learn something they first need to acquire the tools, right? A player can't just tell me "I want to learn how to lockpick" if they don't have a lock to practice on or a lockpick?

I'd love to answer that, but with the whole blue board thing I'd rather just tell you to look at some of InCase's more recent pictures (on HF) until you find the ones with the femboi cheerleader.

the intention is that abilty checks are active decisions on the part of the players, and saving throws are reactions to things happenign to the character

dms can fuck it up though
also for saving throws you only get proficiency bonus for your class saving throw proficiencies, skills are no help, whereas for ability checks you're probably trying to make use of a character's skills

You could let a master thief NPC give them a quick and dirty basic course in lockpicking, so they could try to pick locks but were still unable to add their proficiency bonus until they spent more time at the local thieves' guild practicing with different kinds of locks and so on.

As for the time it takes, I don't know. Whatever you think is okay, usually they happen "between the adventures", so it could be something like weeks to months.

Checks are made to accomplish something, saves are made to resist/avoid something.

But don't take my terminology in that post to define anything, I tend to use them interchangeably sometimes because you're right, they are functionally the same thing, only differentiated by context. The numbers adding up are all going to be the same whether it's a "check" or a "save".

So basically it's just up to your judgement what would be a check or a save when it comes to stuff you're making up like steering a ship or consulting a map. Some abilities/spells/items are specific about which they affect, so it might be important, but I'd say for the most part it's not going to matter, you just have to tell the character what to roll.

But yeah, I'd say my first two examples would be Checks, because you're trying to accomplish something, while the third one could be either a check or a save depending on your judgement because you could say that you're trying to accomplish steering the ship, or you're trying to avoid crashing, and the last example would be a save for sure because you're trying to avoid falling.

If you're hung up on which is which just ask yourself "Are they accomplishing something good or are they avoiding something bad?" and you'll probably know which to pick.

for tool skills you just apply your proficiency bonus when you do such a thing
like a level 1 guy using thieves' tools to pick a lock or disarm a trap applies his +2 proficiency bonus to the roll
someone using navigation tools applies proficiency bonus to trying to sail a ship

I'd say was right on the money on this. An investiture of time and actual effort should be required to make it happen.

I'd like to think that people won't take something for granted, when they have made efforts to gain that something.

I would allow them the check, but if you really think it's too tangential, maybe impose disadvantage.

I mean... well, yeah. You're the DM, and flexible DM fiat is one of the things that makes games come alive and jump out of the staid rigidity of the system. If someone is trying to tie a really good knot, but doesn't have sleight of hand as a proficiency, you could let them have proficiency anyway if they used to be a sailor and want to use that, because sailors have to die every damn knot all day every day because otherwise shit falls off the boat. That's why it's good to have established backgrounds, because it gives the DM opportunities to mechanically reward good story-writing and RPing.

Er, *tie, rather. You get my drift, though.

talking about checks in general. Every check has a difficulty attached to it, correct? Now I've gone through some resources on the internet but it seems unclear how difficulty should be handled by the GM.

If I consider something to be of "moderate challenge" then what is the target score to roll? Is it 10?

How exactly am I supposed to determine how challenging something actually is?

Also, according to difficulty charts I found on the internet you can set the target score to be above 20.

So let's say that a check requires them to reach 25. That means that if they have a skill bonus of 5 for the related roll they can only reach their goal with a nat 20?

I've even seen rolls that have a target score of 40. How can a player reach a target score of 40?

>I would allow them the check, but if you really think it's too tangential, maybe impose disadvantage.

It's not so much that it's tangential, rather that it answers the question of "what the fuck is this skill even for".

Animal handling should be one of these BTW. I have zero idea why it is a core skill.

here
Yeah, I suppose you're right. I was thinking of a scenario where they're in a hurry and they know they're going to need the skill soon, and that the thief NPC would charge them for it, but it's true that you probably shouldn't just hand out extra skills either.

But isn't lockpicking/thieves' tools a skill that every rogue gets on level 1 anyway?

1. Moderate is a range from 13-16. Pick a number from in there.

2. As a general rule, don't bother with skill rolls below 10. If an action is easy enough that the DC would be below a 10, just let the character do it.

3. Correct.

4. Generally, tasks that difficult have ways to lower the DC enough to make them possible. Like oiling the joints of a rusted door, for instance.

I was just speaking about it in theory. There is a good chance that none of the players in my campaign pick a rogue type character. Eventually someone like a bard comes to the conclusion that since he's already a conman that tricks people through manipulation he could add lockpicking to his arsenal if he infiltrates a building by sweettalking himself past the guards. But for that he needs proficiency in lockpicking.

>4. Generally, tasks that difficult have ways to lower the DC enough to make them possible. Like oiling the joints of a rusted door, for instance.

okay, but still. Let's say that there is no way to lower the difficulty. If the target score is above 20 they are still allowed to roll on it and can succeed on it. The maximum skill check they reach isn't specified, right? They could theoretically complete a skill check that requires them to reach 100 if they have enough proficiency bonuses (through items or buffs or whatever) and a good dice roll.

Oh come on man, OP seems to be new and 5th is great starting point for beginners.

Cleric/druid cantrip Guidance gives you an extra 1d4.
Bards/rogues/etc. can get double proficiency in skills (2*proficiency bonus).

With 20 in a stat and double proficiency on high character levels that's already 5+12, and if add the maximum of 4 from Guidance that's 21, which can reach that 40.

Some things are just more difficult than others. Some things should just be really hard to reach, if not impossible altogether; that's what a 40 might represent. Some truly Exalted level shit (which might not necessarily be beyond the realm of possibility, for level 20s, especially working in concert, though I'm unsure as to how the rules stand on players combining their skill checks to help accomplish something difficult). In general though I would think that having a check at all would infer some difficult beyond routine; otherwise success should be automatic. Like, 5 = Okay, I have to pay attention. 10 = Okay, I have to concentrate. 15 = It would help to have a clue as to what I'm doing. 20 = I'd better know this like it's my job. 25 = I'd better be one of the best in my field. 30 = Pushing the upper limit of normal mortal limitations.

That's the sorta vibe I get, so far.

10 is easy
it means that even with +0 you still have a 55% chance of success
15 is medium
if you have +3-6 from proficiency + ability scores, then a 15 DC check for a character who's skilled at something is roughly equivalent to a 10 DC check for an unskilled character. 20 is hard, even if you're skilled, you'll probably miss it mroe than half of the time until you reach a high enough level for lots of proficiency

hmm, according to the chart on this site they put 10 to be an "average" check.

simplednd.wordpress.com/dungeon-mastering/determining-difficulty-checks/

it seems you disagree with that. Do you think they are wrong?

Well, I think so mostly because, if a character who lacks any positive modifiers from skill and ability can still get it slightly over half the time, I would define that as easy, like I said. Of course, if a DM thinks 'easy' things should have a higher success rate than that even for unskilled players, that's totally fine and up to them.

It's worth noting, though, that the 5e player's handbook says the following(if i remember correctly)

5 = very easy
10 = easy
15 = medium
20 = hard
25 = very hard
30 = extremely hard

Dude, you're the GM, it's up to you at the end of the day. Consult resources if you need to but you'll be the one making the call. You have to decide how difficult something should be in universe.

For your example, if something is DC 25 then yeah, that's hard as FUCK for low level players. Basically the only way they'd manage to accomplish it is if they are skilled at that specific task (possibly requiring the expertise trait), have a high required ability score AND be quite lucky. I'd say for a level 5 or under adventure, a DC 25 might be something like the wizard translating a completely dead language enough to understand it's contents reasonably well. Or the Rogue managing to cross a tightrope at a dead sprint while carrying something. Or the Barbarian managing to swim a short distance upstream through very strong rapids.

25 means almost impossible for anyone that is actually extremely suited for the task, and literally impossible for anyone who doesn't have extreme skill training and aptitude.

As far as stuff like DC 40, that's where you're talking about shit like lifting thousands of pounds or jumping over tall trees, Sweet talking demigods or bluffing powerful demons. Things that aren't possible without legendary ability. These are things that might start being possible around lvl10 if you REALLY do some bullshit with spells abilities items and exceptional luck.

Something important to keep in mind is that a character should be able to tell about how hard something would be, and if it's reasonable for them to know that it's impossible, just don't let them roll unless they have a damn good reason. IE, if the lvl 4 fighter wants to try and rip a 20ft marble pillar off the ground and throw it, tell him "you know that wouldn't work" but if he says "I want to crack the pillar at the bottom with a sledge, while the wizard casts grease below it and the barbarian and rogue use ropes at the top to pull it the right direction. THEN you can change the DC

Is correctaccording to the 5e DM manual,
5 very easy
10 easy
15 moderate
20 hard
25 very hard
30 nearly impossible

I don't know what the fuck that wordpress is refrencing.

Perhaps your rogue just isn't that kind of rogue.

Rogues usually get some good abilities for being sneaky, but I don't remember them having the profession automatically in 5E.

Usually the player has to make the choice of skills and decide what kind of aptitudes their character has. Not all rogues are the stealy type. Some of them are more stabby or sneaky or magic-y.

Then they've better be the best of the best and come prepared for the task. Theoretically they COULD do anything, but the GM as the final arbiter can say that it is impossible if it goes too far. There's a lot of planning involved to even theoretically perform this and something important is whether or not the player characters would actually know they could do it.

I'd still argue that usually there is always a way to lower the difficulty, which is usually what you'd do to reward clever thinking and good roleplaying. It puts the onus on the PCs to make it easier on themselves and helps lighten the burden.

The GM can always poot his or her foot down, when it comes to something. The players can try something impossible that COULD require a DC 100 skill check with a lot of planning, but as the GM you can simply say that no matter how hard they try, they can't do it.

The power is in your hands.

Another question.

Coming back to my previous example with ship navigation. Let's say that the players get lost at night and the guy that has ship navigation as a proficiency wants to determine where he is by looking at the stars.

Now his character already has a proficiency bonus on survival from his class or race or whatever. If I tell him "okay, roll a check on survival" is he allowed to add another proficiency bonus on top of his survival skill because he has proficiency in ship navigation? Or does the game never allow you to add double proficiency to a skill if they are already proficient in it?

Also, should I tell my players the difficulty score of something BEFORE they attempt to throw on it?

Considering they said "A nat 20 ALWAYS succeeds" then yes, they are wrong. A nat 20 doesn't mean anything on a skill check, though sometimes in the appropriate context the GM can go with the flow and turn a success into a great success or something similar.

But a nat 20 doesn't make the impossible possible, it just means you're hella lucky.

Also 10, for PC's, should be considered easy. It's only an average check if you're an average person. With zero bonuses or minuses, you have a 50/50 (actually 55/45 I know) shot at it. That's pretty much the definition of average. But it's extremely unlikely for any PC to not have any bonuses because PC's are better than regular people. Thus a DC 10 check should be easy for any PC, unless it's specifically something the character is shitty at, like the barbarian trying to decypher magic or the wizard trying to pump iron. Even then, it's something that's definitely possible and failure would only really happen if you didn't have a second try at it. Because 50/50 means that with two tries you should probably have gotten it.

>Note: a roll of a natural 20 will always pass a check.
I thought it was a good point, but not because of "epic nat20", but because if something is impossible then the DM shouldn't even make the players roll for it. Just tell them no, it's impossible, you don't get to roll.

okay so this is actually something I've been wondering about.

Are difficulty scores universal? It doesn't matter if the wizard or the barbarian asks me whether they can do something, right? The difficulty score for both of them will be the same? The ACTUAL difficulty of it is determined by their proficiency in it because they have higher chance of succeeding, right?

On page 12 of the players handbook (I'm assuming you're using 5e)
"Your proficency bonus can't be added to a single die roll or other number more then once, Occasionally your proficiency bonus might modified before you apply it. (doubed or halved for example) If a circumstance suggests that your proficiency bonus applies more than once to the same roll or that it should be multiplied more than once you nevertheless add it only once, multiply it only once and halve it only once."

>Also, should I tell my players the difficulty score of something BEFORE they attempt to throw on it?
I wouldn't in some situations, but most of the time, I would say yes. For example, if you're a decently skilled adventurer who's climbed things before, would you not be able to judge how difficult it is to climb a rock wall or something before attempting it? You'll probably able to tell in the current situation whether the character should be able to tell the difficulty or not. The most common situation where you might hide DCs is social situations, when a player is trying to persuade/deceive/intimidate, but even then you can give them clues like 'this NPC looks nervous", etc.
I don't know if there's any rules about this, but in tahts pecific situation, the 2 skills seem to overlap and I would think they would add to each other. That's the thing about these games, there's so many specific situations you have to use your personal judgment a lot.

Exactly. DC 10 = pretty consistent if you're good at the skill, 50-50 if you're not. DC 15 = you gotta get lucky if you're unskilled, 50-50 if you're skilled and low level, pretty consistent if you're skilled and you're higher level and therefore have a higher proficiency bonus, and so on

I've heard some people talking about changing the DC depending on the class, but that's kind of weird too. I mean, for example, the barbarian who's doing an arcana check might be an old sage with 16 intelligence, proficient in the skill (who knows why), so it doesn't make sense to penalize him for his class since his background gives him the skill anyway.

On the other hand, it's kind of a bummer for the smart wizard to not understand something because a low roll, while the lucky dumb fighter just happens to know some obscure eldritch sign.

>On the other hand, it's kind of a bummer for the smart wizard to not understand something because a low roll, while the lucky dumb fighter just happens to know some obscure eldritch sign.

yeah, this is exactly why I was asking the question. A lucky roll can pass on any difficulty score at 20 or below even for characters that have absolutely nothing to do with that skill. You have to make it a 20+ check to ensure that you can't pass it without proficiency in it or some stat bonus from your equipment.

>On the other hand, it's kind of a bummer for the smart wizard to not understand something because a low roll, while the lucky dumb fighter just happens to know some obscure eldritch sign.
This is just an inherent problem of the d20 system, where extreme outcomes are just as likely as the average outcome. If you were to use 3d6 for skill checks instead you'd notice character skill/ability being a much more important factor, with critical successes and failures actually being critically extraordinary.

Just try rolling a character with 1d20 instead of 3/4d6 to get an idea of what i mean. The extremes are just as common as the average, which is not how it should be.

Yes and no. When describing the challenge to a player specifically you should personalize it. If the huge lvl 6 20 str barbarian asks who hard it would be to lift a 150 pound statue you should tell him that it'd be very easy for him if he takes his time, it's hefty but not too bad. If the scrawny sorcerer asks how difficult it would be, tell him it would be really fucking hard, shit looks fucking heavy. In reality it's probably a DC 20 athletics check. Assuming the Barb has like a +10 bonus all together, it's a pretty simple check as long as he isn't rushed. While with almost no bonuses, the check would be nearly impossible for the sorcerer, excepting perhaps an extraordinary 100% exertion amount of effort, which a nat 20 would describe.

Basically, take the DC of the check, that's how difficult it is for the average person, if you're describing it in generic terms, use that difficulty description. If you're describing it to one character, take the bonus he'd have towards the check before rolling, subtract that from the DC, and use the resulting number to describe the difficulty to them. DC20 - 10 STR/Athletics bonus = DC 10 (easy) check for the Barbarian. While DC 20 - 1 = DC19 (Almost but not quite impossible) check for the Sorcerer.

And the more skilled someone is in something, the more they should be able to estimate the difficulty. A professional weight lifter will be able to tell to a fairly accurate degree what his chances of success are when it comes to lifting something. While someone totally untrained wouldn't, and in fact might consider things that are technically possible for them, totally impossible because they don't know their own capabilities. And vice versa, An amateur climber might thing a climb is totally possible when they in fact have no chance.

Again, it's all up to your judgement as the GM.

Well, it can be kind of funny to try to figure out WHY the fighter knows something like that.

But you could probably limit the checks that clearly need previous knowledge/training in order to pass it to only those characters who have the skill in it.

Now a different question that has nothing to do with rolls.

What is a good way to keep your economy in check?

I've played tabletop sessions where the GM seemed to apply prices to goods so arbitrarily that buying a new sword was barely more expensive than buying a beer in a bar.

How do you make sure that your economy isn't fucked?

Here OP, have the clean image.

The main thing is to just not give your players too much gold
Use the item prices in the PHB, and increase/decrease them to your preference.

Stick to the prices in the guide.

>Femboi cheerleader decides the middle of a football game while two other cheerleaders hold her up is a good time to spurt
>One is looking in awe
>Other is pic related

>her

In situation like that, I would just ask the player to justify it in some way. Not in an accusatory way, but rather, just throw some exposition at me to justify it and I'll roll with it so that it doesn't just seem like you succeeded for literally no reason other than the dice.

In your example I'd ask the fighter to tell me where he might have seen that symbol. If I was the fighter I'd probably say something like "In my time as a bouncer for a tavern I had to drag this crazy guy, dressed all in robes, looked like a cultist or something, outside by the collar, he wouldn't stop talking about (whatever the subject of the rune is). When I tossed him in the alley he grabbed my shirt and wouldn't let go, he forced his palm in my face screaming about how the brand there meant something, I didn't think anything of it then, but I'm pretty sure it was the same rune as this"
Or even something simpler and more boring like "It was in a story book my mom read me" or "When I was a guard we caught some guy doing shit and this symbol came up on a lot of his stuff"

As a GM you shouldn't ever shut down when something incredible happens, that just makes your players feel like they can't do anything cool. But you also gotta make them associate character building and roleplay with it, otherwise they'll just see every check as "okay guys we've got 5 people so that means 5 tries, it's just a numbers game"

If she's wearing a cheerleader outfit, then it doesn't matter if she's a he!

You misspelled "I'm a faggot" wrong

You can fix it by bringing DC's and skills up as well, so it isn't as close between trained and untrained.

What is this image from?

Sorry, I'm a faggot.

Don't think you're above that, fellow 4Chaner

InCase.

what do you mean? Do you have an example?

the problem isn't that the difference between the skilled and the unskilled is too small, it's that it's too common for skilled to get unlucky and unskilled to get lucky

There's nothing wrogn with teh 'barbarian happens to know some obscure ancient glyph' scenario someone described above, as long as it's appropriately extraordinary and it makes it feel special.

If your sill amounts to +5, and the DC for something is 13, you'll get it very consistently with 3d6, but occasionally fail, which makes sense cause skileld people make mistakes. If you're using d20, you'll get it most of the time but still fail like 35% of the time, which is silly

forgot my image

I usually go with 1cp = $1. Super easy in my head. A mug of ale is 4cp. So $4. A longbow is 50gp = $5000, which might seem a bit much by today's standards, but compare that to a weapon of war these days. Most characters start with 4d4x10 gold, which is about 100. So ten grand. Not too unreasonable for someone who's been squirreling away money or had a few lucky breaks.

It's complicated, you just bump trained skills up by 5 or so and adjust DC as needed.

It really doesn't matter all that much outside of conditional modifiers. If you don't want the 5 skill guy to fail 35% of the time, give him a lower target DC.

Isn't complicated I mean.

but then technically you're implying that the difficulty is lower, not that the skilled character is more skilled, this triggers my autism

Which is why you make skilled characters have more points.

>you just bump trained skills up by 5

but doesn't that upset balance? Your skills only get bonuses from proficiency and ability bonuses. If you bump them up again then you are basically just awarding more proficiency points?

You only do it to widen the gap between skilled and unskilled. You can adjust DC's as needed to make it work.