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

[keynup]

I am "Perspective A"
I was looking at starting BECMI because I didn't want to do 3.5 again. Then I start finding details about 5e, and it began to"Feel" like it was right for me.

For the falling example, I feel that arrows & a net as spontaneous reaction isn't in my "plausible believability "
Doing something with arrows to slow the fall, Yes give a try
The net & arrows with some prep or teamwork, then Yes give a try

I'm inclined to allow skills to replicate things from the Hercules or Xena tv shows. But I can easily see some DM as that kind of stuff as beyond skill possibilities.

I also see the extreme use of skills as being situational and my not always be repeatable, while spells and abilities are reliable in what you expect the results to be.

 

[Krachek]

Right now I trust the vast majority of DMs to be bad at making balanced unguided/poorly guided on the fly decisions call me a cynic but it happened the first time I ever played in the 70s and till 5e decided it was a retro clone it had become less and less a problem as the game tools improved. Like my epically difficult 5e one man affecting feather fall... I expect that to happen all over the place and most people to just throw a spell at a problem.

So I’m lucky to know good Dm.

 

[Oofta]

I believe that he is saying that the chance of a PC to prevent a fellow PC from being hurt from a fall can be automatic (cast Feather Fall) or a range based on the DM that can go from easy ("Sure, I'll let you try to nail his clothing to the wall to stop him falling with a ranged attack" <Sets a reasonable DC>) to almost/actually impossible ("I don't think a real life athlete could do that, so you can't either.")

Unless you happen to have the right plot coupon, your chances of succeeding can depend more on what the DM had for lunch than what you're actually trying to attempt. Furthermore, even though your general capability and power at level 20 may be a hundred times greater than it was at level 1, your chance of succeeding on a mundane task where you can't use magic is unlikely to have improved by much more than maybe 3 times greater.

A while back the example was given (paraphrasing a bit here) that a ranger could throw a net and fire a several arrows to catch people as they fall to mimic a feather fall spell. That ... well that wouldn't happen in my campaign because there's simply a limit to how much PCs can violate the laws of physics without magic in my campaign.

But the other side of this is that the DM always has control of success for failure. Every once in a while the party will surprise me but by and large in games I've been involved with if the group needs to teleport to succeed it's because the DM knew they could teleport. When it comes to more mundane tasks it doesn't matter what the door is made of because the DM chose the door based on how difficult it would be to open. Want a door that's easy to open? It's made of rotting wood. Impossible? Enchanted adamantine.

Whether you start from a description of the door and look up the info on a chart only to derive a number or start from a DC to determine the description of the door doesn't really change the result.

 

[iserith]

I can admit that in my early days and well into my 20's I made many unguided/poor decisions on the fly.
However, these days, and especially with 5e that most of my checks lie within the 10-15 range with some esoteric lore reaching the 20 mark barring the odd exception. Only once did I use a DC 25, and that was to fuel an archaic teleportation circle between the Astral Planes of various Multiverses. Given the DC range provided in the published adventures which I have seen, I feel confident with my on the fly decisions.

On this point, the DMG backs you up (pg. 238): "If the only DCs you ever use are 10, 15, and 20, your game will run just fine."

 

[Garthanos]

A while back the example was given (paraphrasing a bit here) that a ranger could throw a net and fire a several arrows to catch people as they fall to mimic a feather fall spell. That ... well that wouldn't happen in my campaign because there's simply a limit to how much PCs can violate the laws of physics without magic in my campaign.

This wasn't actually the initial improvisation it was more of what kind of conjecture as to what kind of stunt might it take situation. (Just to duplicate a feather falls benefits)

The original concept was as I said way more limited than a feather fall only aiding one ally and even that recieved anything from moderate to virtually impossible.

Ranger 11th level ability called Volley
You can use your action to make a ranged attack against any number of creatures within 10 feet of a point you can see within your weapon's range. You must have ammunition for each target, as normal, and you make a separate attack roll for each target

He can even do that with an ally in the area without targeting them if I read it correct very precise.

Now in favor of the stunt is this is not being fired at moving targets or atleast not ones that do not want hit nor trying to penetrate armor in fact the position of the net is relatively under his control. He might get away with only three arrows.

And of course how much of teetering moment you allow is arbitrary and highly variable. In the first time this came up I initially wasn't thinking very much but the one DM basically let him dive and grab em back from the brink instead of ride the fall out or catch em the bottom.

 

[Garthanos]

The ranger at 11th level is Paragon Robinhood class character and I might allow the stunt

 

[Oofta]

This wasn't actually the initial improvisation it was more of what kind of conjecture as to what kind of stunt might it take situation. (Just to duplicate a feather falls benefits)

The original concept was as I said way more limited than a feather fall only aiding one ally and even that recieved anything from moderate to virtually impossible.

Ranger 11th level ability called Volley
You can use your action to make a ranged attack against any number of creatures within 10 feet of a point you can see within your weapon's range. You must have ammunition for each target, as normal, and you make a separate attack roll for each target

He can even do that with an ally in the area without targeting if I read it correct.

Now in favor of the stunt is this is not being fired at moving targets that do not want hit or trying to penetrate armor in fact the position of the net is relatively under his control. He might get away with only three arrows.

And of course how much of teetering moment you allow is arbitrary and highly variable. (I initially wasn't thinking very much but the one DM basically let him dive and grab em back from the brink instead of ride the fall out or catch em the bottom )

Different people will be okay with different levels of what is allowed. If the DM is consistent and doesn't show favoritism I don't see an issue with it.

 

[5ekyu]

Ah sorry one way that abilities of the most versatile power houses in the game might not intersect is by doing a game with a theme campaign that is a bit out of genre (not totally though) . -- > it says nothing about how much those intersect with what "needs to get done" in any given campaign. .

Of course, that is one way, sort of extreme, but it does fit with my experience that the value and balance in any game stems from the challenges presented and how they show the abilities of the characters playing out - regardless of what header those capabilities fall under and regardless of how much detail, pages, word count of rules there are for each header.

Fireball may be more defined than insight or herbalism or stealth or persuasion but its value can vary as much or more from one table to the next and be more or less than them - or the same.

Balance or value is created by those challenge choices.

 

[Garthanos]

Different people will be okay with different levels of what is allowed. If the DM is consistent and doesn't show favoritism I don't see an issue with it.

The archer stunt is using a play off an existing ability method that I recommend as a quick and dirty because it starts with a well defined ability --- when a game has well defined abilities adjustment or bouncing off of those is much easier on me. I feel like most skill use just doesnt.

 

[Garthanos]

Of course, that is one way, sort of extreme, but it does fit with my experience that the value and balance in any game stems from the challenges presented and how they show the abilities of the characters playing out - regardless of what header those capabilities fall under and regardless of how much detail, pages, word count of rules there are for each header.

I disagree less detail really does promote less impact and linear advancement of skills vs quadratic advancement of other arenas of ability. Can I gather ten times the herbs or keep them fresh ten times as long can I duplicate higher level spells with really rare ones that I couldn't before. Detail really does make a difference. D&D is a game of lists. Lists of Spells or Powers or Polearms even LOL