Unsatisfied with the D&D 5e skill system

Saeviomagy · Jun 3, 2019

Tony Vargas said:
Yep. Empowerment.

Expectation of extra duties doesn't correlate to empowerment.

GMMichael · Jun 3, 2019

5ekyu said:
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.

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.

Stalker0 said:
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.

5ekyu · Jun 3, 2019

DMMike said:
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 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.

But, in 5e, I dont know if I ever assigned different DCs for different PCs except for maybe a few physical types of moves where height, weight and auto-strenggh distance for jumping or such mattered. Mostly if a PC has something not accounted for that impacts significantly it's the advantage or disadvantage that applies.

I guess some folks take more time on DCs and do its an issue. Me, nah, cant think of a DC that took longer to assign than it would take me to decide "no roll needed". So, really, tho it might would be so in your games, it's a well trained and quick response in mine so, none of my time lost.

But really, so often the issue of rolls vs no rolls seems for some to hinge on time... its odd to me but we find often quite a bit of fun and novel swerves from the unexpected results of some rolls. I wonder if it's an outgrowth of "checks are simple binary pass fail" vs "checks are not binary with lots of resolutions that can be fun and interesting" thing? I imagine if even a third the ability checks- in my games were binary pass fail only we might be inclined to see them differently.

As for the last bit, about the non-roll competence... well it depends. If the player of Str 18 hulk knows the shove open the door was auto because he knows the high strength net the auto-success threshold or his athletics did, that points to *his* strengths playing a role. If it's just "gm says no role" it's not really spotlighting anything except no roll needed.

Swarmkeeper · Jun 3, 2019

Stalker0 said:
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.

DMMike said:
Another thing that lets PCs know they're competent: letting them do what they say their characters do, without asking for rolls.

The key word in [MENTION=5889]Stalker0[/MENTION] quote is 'sometimes': a word which here means less than 'occasionally' but more than 'never'. With my apologies to Lemony Snicket.

I agree that most of the time, given a good goal and approach, just let the PC succeed and move on to the more challenging stuff. Especially true when there is no meaningful consequence of failure.

Tony Vargas · Jun 3, 2019

Saeviomagy said:
Expectation of extra duties doesn't correlate to empowerment.

Sure it does. Usually to no change in job title nor increase in pay, too.

DMMike said:
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 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?

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.

What if the Rules Are Intended to be ambiguous, so the DM has plenty of room to interpret them as desired?

Stalker0 · Jun 3, 2019

Saeviomagy said:
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.

Warmaster Horus · Jun 3, 2019

I don't think I've ever played in an RPG whose skill system was 'just right'. It's a very hard concept to conceptualize in a discrete system.

Fenris-77 · Jun 3, 2019

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.

Saeviomagy · Jun 4, 2019

Stalker0 said:
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.

+5 stat makes you a world-champion material natural at the task out of the gate. You are one of the most naturally talented individuals at a task that your race is especially good at. Then you stack on top of that "has studied for their life so far at doing this task" and "is guided by the hand of a diety".

In terms of the numbers that players hit, it's not particularly remarkable. In terms of what those numbers are supposed to represent in the world? That should be pretty special. The disjoint between those things is one of the flaws in the system.

Swarmkeeper · Jun 4, 2019

Fenris-77 said:
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.

I'm with you. In fact, I'd say you've internalized the rule on pg 237 of the DMG (emphasis mine):

[SECTION]Using Ability Scores

When a player wants to do something, it's often appropriate to let the attempt succeed without a roll or a reference to the character's ability scores. For example, a character doesn't normally need to make a Dexterity check to walk across an empty room or a Charisma check to order a mug of ale. Only call for a roll if there is a meaningful consequence for failure. When deciding whether to use a roll, ask yourself two questions:

Is a task so easy and so free of conflict and stress that there should be no chance of failure?
Is a task so inappropriate or impossible-such as hitting the moon with an arrow-that it can't work?

If the answer to both of these questions is no, some kind of roll is appropriate. The following sections provide guidance on determining whether to call for an ability check, attack roll, or saving throw; how to assign DCs; when to use advantage and disadvantage; and other related topics.[/SECTION]