Saeviomagy
Adventurer
Yep. Empowerment.
Expectation of extra duties doesn't correlate to empowerment.
Yep. Empowerment.
Sure, there are exceptions, but if a DM is spending time assigning different DCs to different characters or determining DCs for rolls that don't even need to be made, that DM is spending less time enhancing the narrative for the PC. I really hope that a PC is thinking "hmm, now that my hands are on this 'unclimbable' wall, the rock feels much more slick than I thought it would be. This could be a bad sign," instead of "the DC is 22, so I don't get an auto-success for my 18 dexterity. I'd better start counting my bonuses..."One of their options includes auto-success for DC 10 or less *for characters who are proficient* in non-disad situations. Obviously that sets up the "you set a dc" along with "it turns out to be no chsnce of failure" as a possible result - depending on the traits of the character doing the deed - not just the "approach".
Another one is to allow auto-success when the DC is (iirc) 5 lower than the raw ability score (?) - again resulting in DC being assigned but the character score making a roll unnecessary.
So, nah, the idea that setting a DC when a roll winds up not being necessary is somehow a sign within the system of a fsilure on the GM is not supported.
Another thing that lets PCs know they're competent: letting them do what they say their characters do, without asking for rolls.I will say that sometimes its good to let players roll those low DC rolls, because it reminds them that they don't have to have +10 in something to be competent. Its easy to fall in that trap, if the players only see DC 20s thrown around they begin to assume that if they aren't making 20's than there is no point to trying.
I don't know if any PC has ever thought "thecDC isx22...etc" in my games, cuz they dont hear that. The PC is more likely considering the descriptive etc. The player may well be considering DC etc because, knowing the rules and their stars and the way I assign DCs they are trying to gauge outcomes - including their auyo-success chance.Sure, there are exceptions, but if a DM is spending time assigning different DCs to different characters or determining DCs for rolls that don't even need to be made, that DM is spending less time enhancing the narrative for the PC. I really hope that a PC is thinking "hmm, now that my hands are on this 'unclimbable' wall, the rock feels much more slick than I thought it would be. This could be a bad sign," instead of "the DC is 22, so I don't get an auto-success for my 18 dexterity. I'd better start counting my bonuses..."
It's a GM failure if the PCs aren't having fun. It's a system failure if the Rules As Written don't convey the Rules As Intended.
Another thing that lets PCs know they're competent: letting them do what they say their characters do, without asking for rolls.
I will say that sometimes its good to let players roll those low DC rolls, because it reminds them that they don't have to have +10 in something to be competent. Its easy to fall in that trap, if the players only see DC 20s thrown around they begin to assume that if they aren't making 20's than there is no point to trying.
Another thing that lets PCs know they're competent: letting them do what they say their characters do, without asking for rolls.
Sure it does. Usually to no change in job title nor increase in pay, too.Expectation of extra duties doesn't correlate to empowerment.
I agree a more with the latter than the former. It's not much time, for at least some return, taking into account /who/ is making an attempt. It may not much more time to figure every DC whether the task is a foregone conclusion or not, but what's the potential return?Sure, there are exceptions, but if a DM is spending time assigning different DCs to different characters or determining DCs for rolls that don't even need to be made, that DM is spending less time enhancing the narrative for the PC.
What if the Rules Are Intended to be ambiguous, so the DM has plenty of room to interpret them as desired?It's a GM failure if the PCs aren't having fun. It's a system failure if the Rules As Written don't convey the Rules As Intended.
Which is especially cogent since getting +10 in something is actually pretty difficult in 5e.
Sometimes. With my party:
1) +3 prof
2) +5 stat
3) +2.5 (Guidance)
There's the +10. And that doesn't even start with the bard powers and the two characters that have expertise. Hitting 30's in my game is a lot more common than the "impossible" tag it gets noted.
My main problem with asking players to roll for skill checks that don't have obvious consequences and should be a matter of course for their skill level is the potential for rolling that '1'. If there are no consequences and the task is easy, why add the potential for failure? It might be realistic for some definitions of that for an RPG, but mostly I think it just feels like a screw job. I save the potential for failure for challenging tasks or ones that have obvious drama inherent in failure.