D&D 5E Skills and Ability Checks -- Perspective on Consistency vs DM Empowerment

[Garthanos]

I wanted to analyze class abilities and spell abilities and weigh them reasonably against resource expenditure but I am told that is wrong... just wing it based on reality.

I picked a combat action for the very first case to point out that is was a proficiency just like skills and that it had loads of tools for demonstrating how the awesome stacks up and increases as you level but could just as readily be improvised (because I am aware of things like real world archery) and have the kinds of problems basing it on a DMs reality stick.(mine is different)

 

[Garthanos]

Because reality will surely tell me what a skilled historian might know heck some DM in another thread basically said nothing at all because history books are crappy in his world and no educated adventurer types like bards have cataloged monsters ever. Common sense hmmmmm.

 

[Shiroiken]

A "DM Mentor" made all the difference, to me, back in the day.

Me too. In my mind, I owe it to him and those who came before him, to mentor those newb DMs I find. Even if I only provide a bit of wisdom, it's worth it.

 

[5ekyu]

And there is another active thread where people are complaining about DMs designing adventures for the specific characters abilities and people denying they do it, not sure what my opinion is on that.

Oh and I think DM fix it is a cop out

Trying to keep a functionally incompetent character alive let alone contributing I have seen be a royal pain Incompetence outside of combat at-least has less of that death problem I suppose.

Its far harder to figure out how good to allow those skill checks to make it balanced vs other abilities in a game with tons of subsystems all accomplishing overlapping things with differing resources than making it too powerful or not powerful enough.

I am not saying "DM fix it" at all, I am saying "DM creates it" not the rules. No amount of rules for PCs will amount to a molehill in the mountain of campaign balance between characters. As long as the GM creates the setting of the campaign in terms of what scenes get scene time, what enemies get in the way, what assets and allies and neutrals are involved etc etc etc then you can have a 600 page core ruleset and all you eind up with is more emphasis on GM choices.

The only exception would be more indie style games where the currency is a mostly amorphous amount of authorship control.

 

[Garthanos]

I am not saying "DM fix it" at all, I am saying "DM creates it" not the rules.

The rules tell me how much plot coupon that wizard has to get things done no guessing at all... I am trying to line that up with other abilities which may overlap the function but which the game has neglected but apparently I am told not to do that.

The rules even tell me many things the non casters can do too some of those overlap with functions that seem possible by pure attribute checks ... but because of varying resources and similar, the ability to parallel anything is obscured.

 

[Garthanos]

The only exception would be more indie style games where the currency is a mostly amorphous amount of authorship control.

While the authorship control is huge in terms of versatility. One of the other things they are also doing is creating a common resource system across the board so its relatively easier to align/balance what different characters can do even if they accomplish them different ways.

 

[Ashrym]

Oh they didnt think they were saying no but a really nearly impossible stunt unless you are extremely high level is the same thing and this was an affect easily achieved by a low level spell. I am sure they thought they were doing the games anything is possible guidelines and 10 percent is possible its just practically a stupid action waste in actual play.

That's only accurate if the DM decides the outcome is in doubt for whatever reason and a roll is made instead of narrating the action. That gets back to rolling being the enemy of action.

I'm not sure which low level spell you are comparing to which action. To which are you referring?

What do you consider consistency?
all stuck or lock doors having the same dc all over the world?
i hope not.
i don’t see a problem Dm assigning different DC to different situation.

In that one DM might handle the checks differently from another DM.

Are your spell casters less useful in combat than the martial ones.

I'm going to say that depends on in what way. Spell casters are not great for dealing damage or taking it, and they can add mobility but they don't have bonus movement all the time or things like cunning action. The battle master who does a disarm and push to separate an opponent from his or her weapon makes a big contribution in damage reduction in the process.

I've seen far too many spell casters struggling as they didn't realize they might be targeted and take damage, or fail a save, or lose a concentration spell. Then they start losing that first action on a defensive spell. A lot of spells require attack rolls and whiff, or save for effect and whiff. Then the action and slot are gone. Sure, there are save for half spells and auto-hit spells, but they don't do the damage those martial classes are doing even with a save for half.

Playing a spell caster isn't the easy street people think it is, IME. They certainly aren't struggling to be useful but I don't find martial characters struggle to be useful either.

 

[Garthanos]

I'm not sure which low level spell you are comparing to which action. To which are you referring?

It shouldn't matter much ... I don't think I specified a situational spell called feather fall. The action was to dive after and try and prevent the fall or prevent the damage the ally might take from the fall. Character trained in acrobatics. One DM is sure you can make a moderate athletics/acrobatics check to stop the fall... and the other is ok as you get to him as he is going over the edge and it will be nearly impossible to reduce the damage of the fall or nullify it.

 

[Garthanos]

I'm going to say that depends on in what way.

I am quite comfortable with role variation on how one contributes.

 

[Ashrym]

It shouldn't matter much ... I don't think I specified a situational spell called feather fall. The action was to dive after and try and prevent the fall or prevent the damage the ally might take from the fall. Character trained in acrobatics. One DM is sure you can make a moderate athletics/acrobatics check to stop the fall... and the other is ok as you get to him as he is going over the edge and it will be nearly impossible to reduce the damage of the fall or nullify it.

Who the heck takes feather fall?

Trained isn't as meaningful as it was. The DM looks at the situation and action, then decides if training would apply.

My first though is if the fall is 20' or less a check to reduce the damage to 0 on a 15 DC would be appropriate and if the fall is more than 20' or the first check fails then reduce the damage by the result of the check (which still might end in 0 damage).

The reason for that is the monk's slow fall ability was changed to reduce damage based on class level, and the cat's grace version of enhance ability only protects from falls of 20' or less. That keeps the acrobatics check in line with a second level spell or class ability.

That doesn't mean everyone would do that. I don't disagree that putting things like that in the hands of the DM can cause variations in rulings from one DM to the next. That's the trade-off for deliberately empowering DM's to run the those checks how each feels is appropriate.