Should Characters Be Able to Attempt Anything Untrained?

[Falling Icicle]

It sounds like skills will have a much smaller role in 5e than in 3rd and 4th editions, so much so in fact that they said it will be easy to leave skills out of the game completely. Ability rolls will be paramount, and skills will just give bonuses to those rolls. How much of a bonus, we don't know, but if you can leave skills out of the game entirely and not miss them, the bonus is probably going to be small.

But doesn't this mean that any character will be able to do anything, just maybe not as well as someone with a higher ability score? Maybe my Fighter has a 14 Dex and my party's Rogue an 18. Should the fighter not only be able to attempt to pick locks, pick pockets, sneak around, disarm traps, and do every conceivable thing that could possibly fall under Dexterity as an ability, and be only 2 or maybe 4 points worse at it than the Rogue?

What about things that used to be "trained only?" Should any character be able to try any action, or should some kind of training be required for certain things? If they're not going to have a defined skill system, it's hard to imagine how they could have "trained only" types of actions, unless they tie it to class (i.e. only Rogues and smilar classes would be allowed to attempt to pick locks, pick pockets, or disarm traps).

I'm wondering how people feel about this.

 

[Yora]

I think as it is planned now, the basic rules have characters gain bonuses to skills from their character classes. The ability to advance skills as you gain levels is optional. So I imagine that thieves have a significant bonus to "Dexterity checks when opening locks" that fighters don't get.

Usually, characters should always be able to attempt anything, even if the chances for success are virtually nonexistant.

 

[Number48]

Well, the 5E take on it, according to the plan they're currently thinking on, is that whenever you want to attempt a skill, you only get a roll if there is a question of success or failure. Otherwise, you automatically succeed or automatically fail (or just don't attempt). The 16 Str fighter might clear the jump without a roll at all, the 12 Str rogue might need to roll for the same jump, and the 8 Str wizard cannot succeed. So I guess that replaced "trained" for you.

 

[Falling Icicle]

Well, the 5E take on it, according to the plan they're currently thinking on, is that whenever you want to attempt a skill, you only get a roll if there is a question of success or failure. Otherwise, you automatically succeed or automatically fail (or just don't attempt). The 16 Str fighter might clear the jump without a roll at all, the 12 Str rogue might need to roll for the same jump, and the 8 Str wizard cannot succeed. So I guess that replaced "trained" for you.

I think what they were talking about in that example was basically the same as "taking 10." I don't think they intend to tell players that they just fail, period, because if they took 10 they would fail. Taking 10 has always been an option for speeding up play, not for screwing over characters. I doubt that will change. At least, I hope it won't.

 

[Number48]

Nope, that's what they said. I don't think it's proposed as the Wizard says he wants to make the jump and the DM says he falls to his death, but the Wizard says he wants to make the jump and the DM says that he just can't make it unless he finds some way to make the jump easier for him. Of course, I'm picturing a significant jump here, not 3 feet and it might be that the total of Str and bonuses has to be even farther apart, but it's just an example.

 

[Falling Icicle]

Nope, that's what they said. I don't think it's proposed as the Wizard says he wants to make the jump and the DM says he falls to his death, but the Wizard says he wants to make the jump and the DM says that he just can't make it unless he finds some way to make the jump easier for him. Of course, I'm picturing a significant jump here, not 3 feet and it might be that the total of Str and bonuses has to be even farther apart, but it's just an example.

There have been times i've told a player flat out that they couldn't succeed, but that's because even if they rolled a 20 they couldn't have met the DC. I hope that's all they meant by that. I hate resolving things by DM fiat. The very reason we have game mechanics is to avoid it as much as possible!

 

[Number48]

Oh, I agree. It's no more DM fiat than the DM setting a DC for a task, however there seemed to be implied a narrower range where you roll with greater sections for auto success and auto failure. But, yes, it is otherwise mechanically very similar to setting a DC.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Trained only, as far as I'm concerned, is only appropriate for magic (maybe, sometimes). No reason why any character can't at least try to pick a lock or disarm a trap.

For those sorts of things though, the rogue can get significant bonuses, and it's also important to note that equipment matters. If the fighter happens to have a lockpick set, he can try to use it.

It's also a good idea to use complex skill checks. A fighter might be able to make one lockpicking check at a 10-20% disadvantage relative to the rogue, but a best three out of five substantially reduces his odds (if his average roll doesn't beat the DC).

 

[steeldragons]

Yes.

...with Ahnehnois' caveat that "magic/spell-casting" is the exception to that rule.

The fighter want's to try to open a lock? Again, Ahnehnois' astute note about equipment playing a factor should be taken into account. But, the player says his dagger tip is very narrow and wants to give it a shot. Sure g'head.

The plate-clad cleric wants to leap up on the table in the tavern and swing across the room via the chandelier to intercept the vampire attacking a patron in the corner? Sure he can. ("make this series of ability checks/saves...Hope yer dice are loving you tonight! If you make it to the chandelier, I'll be over here rolling to see if it can support your weight/stay in the ceiling." OR, if I'm feeling generous that night, "Sure, g'head. I'll make a roll for the chandelier. You make a Reflex save to balance/land properly.")

The wizard is backed into a corner and wants to pick up the fallen orc's sword and give it a swing in his defense as the other orc is barreling down on him? Sure he can. (-4 for the lack of proficiency but give it a whirl.)

The halfling thief with an 11 Str. wants to try to make the 10' jump over the chasm? Ok...sure. (Naturally, as a DM, I might advise against the attempt..."Does your character reeeeally think he can make it?"...but it's up to the PC.)

Whether it's mechanically-decided or DM fiat, success and failure are always the options of any scenario. The options of what the PCs do (not what/whether they "can do" whatever it is)...whether "trained" or "untrained" actions...are the players to make.

As it should be.

--SD

 

[StarFyre]

Of course Yes...

Try to say Yes whenever possible.

Afterall; I've never drove a manual transmission car. I can always get into one (given I find one), and TRY to drive it. It may not move; but i can attempt it

Sanjay