D&D 5E Worst Classes Level 1.

[Flamestrike]

The gating only happens for sure pure impossibility for the individual.

That's what Im saying.

While the Human Ranger might need a DC 10 Athletics check to climb a roughly hewn stone wall, his Druid buddy (currently wild shaped into a fish) simply fails (no check allowed), and his Chimpanzee animal companion automatically succeeds as it has a natural climb speed (no check required).

They dont all get DC 10 checks for the same task. Only the Ranger does. Its an impossible task for the Fish/druid and its an automatic success for the Chimpanzee.

 

[DND_Reborn]

No, you're doing it wrong.

The correct answer is 'No Barbarian, you have no appreciable chance of success. No check is possible for you. Cleric, you do have an appreciable chance of success, your DC is X.

The DM determines if a check is allowed for the PC asking for the check.

If you disagree, then would you set the same Religion DC for Snookums the Rangers Chimpanzee animal companion, when the Ranger PC buts in and asks you if Snookums can make a Religion check also?

When you're determining if a check is possible, that determination is made relative to the creature that will be making the check. As Snookums has no possible chance of success, he doesnt get a check at all even though he could make the DC 15 Intelligence (Religion) check untrained.

Listen, telling me I'm doing it wrong when I'm the one showing you the rules is not going to convince me.

Luckily, you can play your way and gatekeep your players from making checks based on their ability scores, and I'll let mine play with the freedom to try to do things when they want to.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Actually @Flamestrike and @dnd4vr

You're both wrong.

The gating only happens for sure pure impossibility for the individual.

One character might be able to make a check while the other can't. What matters is the impossiblitiy of the check attempted.

If you can't speak Elven, you can't attempt a check that requires you to speak Elven. Because it is impossible to speak Elven (in this game) without knowing Elven. There's no check for the nonElven speakers.

Again, I'm not. By the rules, lacking proficiency (IN ANYTHING) allows the player to attempt it with only their ability score.

I'll give you a perfect example. During my lifetime I have studied (in addition to my native English) Spanish, Latin, Romanian, and Ukrainian, each for at least a year. I am also familiar with many phrases in other languages as well. However, I would not have "proficiency" in the sense of 5E except in English and maybe Ukrainian (even that is doubtful since it has been a long time). But, I can easily make Intelligence checks to see if I recall a phrase or understand what someone is saying (at least the jist of it).

 

[Flamestrike]

Listen, telling me I'm doing it wrong when I'm the one showing you the rules is not going to convince me.

Luckily, you can play your way and gatekeep your players from making checks based on their ability scores, and I'll let mine play with the freedom to try to do things when they want to.

Im not gatekeeping based on ability scores. At no stage have I suggested anything of the sort. Thokk the Barbarian doesnt get a Religion check to know the inner workings of the Church of Torm not because he has an Intelligence of 8; its because he's from the Outlands of Chult and has no experience with the Deity.

Im gatekeeping ability checks based on the RAW telling me to only allow a check when the creature in question has a chance of success. In this case, I determine Thokk has no appreciable chance of success at the task.

 

[Minigiant]

In my experience as a player/ DM for 40 odd years, the overwhelming context of 1st level adventuring is 'enter dungeon, slay kobolds/ goblins (and maybe some skeletons), defeat the Kobold/ Goblin king, maybe face an Ogre in there somewhere' and hopefully survive.

This seems to be largely the same format used in most adventures published so far as well.

Nothing wrong with 'only being good at combat' at 1st level. In fact, a lot of people are rating the Fighter very high at 1st level, and that's literally all the Fighter can do.

Nothing is wrong with 'only being good at combat' at 1st level. Just if you are doing tiers, you have to rank at the best. And the Warlock spell known doesn't offer enough to be a top pick for combat at level 1. You're better off with a lotof other classes for pure combat.

It makes a HUGE leap at level 2 though.

 

[Flamestrike]

Again, I'm not. By the rules, lacking proficiency (IN ANYTHING) allows the player to attempt it with only their ability score.

Only if the DM determines that the check is possible for that specific creature in the first place.

Snookums the Chimpanzee animal companion doesnt get a Religion check to know the inner workings of the Church of Torm, not because he lacks proficiency, but because he has no way of knowing the inner workings of the Church of Torm. Ditto Zoldo the Druid (wildshaped into a Fish). He doesnt get an Athletics check to climb a wall, not because he has poor ability scores, or lacks proficiency in Athletics, but because he has no appreciable chance of succesfully climbing the wall.

When the DM determines if a creature is allowed to make an ability check, the first step is determining if that creature needs a check (they might automatically succeed) or if the creature can even attempt an ability check (it might not be possible for them to succeed).

That determination is made relative to the creature.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Im not gatekeeping based on ability scores. At no stage have I suggested anything of the sort. Thokk the Barbarian doesnt get a Religion check to know the inner workings of the Church of Torm not because he has an Intelligence of 8; its because he's from the Outlands of Chult and has no experience with the Deity.

Im gatekeeping ability checks based on the RAW telling me to only allow a check when the creature in question has a chance of success. In this case, I determine Thokk has no appreciable chance of success at the task.

Then you are determining everything about Thokk without any deference to the player. YOU are deciding there is NO CHANCE whatsoever that he never encountered that wandering hermit when he was a child and learned some random bit of information about a deity from another land. If it is that rare, set the DC at 20 so Thokk can't do it.

You are taking the authority away from the player, which no DM should do IMO.

 

[Flamestrike]

Then you are determining everything about Thokk without any deference to the player.

No I am not. In fact I have repeatedly stated:

Thokk the barbarian from the Outlands of Hyboria doesnt get a check to know the inner workings of the Church of Torm. Egbert the Wise, Acoloyte of the Seven Heavens, gets a check.

It's a judgement call depending on player background, skills and class.

I didnt create 'Thokk the Barbarian, Outlander from Chult' just like I didn't force the Druid to wildshape into a Fish (making him automatically fail Athletics checks to climb he might otherwise have a chance of success at).

If the player has a legitimate reason why Thokk might know the secret inner rites of a foreign alien religion, then as a DM I'm all ears, and might allow the check. For example, if it was part of Thokks backstory that he was adopted and raised by Tormite crusaders in Fort Vengeance, where he worked as a guide for them, Id certainly allow a check.

Allowing a check is relative to the creature in question.

I would actually encourage Thokks player to come up with such details when requesting a check.

 

[DND_Reborn]

No I am not. In fact I have repeatedly stated:

I didnt create 'Thokk the Barbarian, Outlander from Chult' just like I didn't force the Druid to wildshape into a Fish (making him automatically fail Athletics checks to climb he might otherwise have a chance of success at).

If the player has a legitimate reason why Thokk might know the secret inner rites of a foreign alien religion, then as a DM I'm all ears, and might allow the check. For example, if it was part of Thokks backstory that he was adopted and raised by Tormite crusaders in Fort Vengeance, where he worked as a guide for them, Id certainly allow a check.

Allowing a check is relative to the creature in question.

I would actually encourage Thokks player to come up with such details when requesting a check.

LOL then you want the players to all justify every tidbit of information their character might ever had reason to be exposed to? No, thank you!

There is a reason why DCs are set. Is it obscure knowledge about the deity? Then the DC should reflect it. Make it a 20. He has a -1 so can't do it without help (such as Guidance) if you want it that way.

It is like setting a DC for jumping a trench. DC 10 (easy), but let's make it DC 20 for Presto because he has a STR 8 and no proficiency. Why? He already has a 50/50 chance he won't make it even though it is an easy task.

Hard tasks become easy when you have ability and proficiency.

It is just too bad the cleric rolled a 3 for a total of 8 but why penalize another player because they didn't outline everything in their PC's history. After all, with a DC 15 the barbarian needs a 16 or higher with INT 8 and got a lucky roll.

Finally, in case you missed it before, I said I am not in agreement with the way 5E does it, but that is how it works (by my interpretation). Interpret it differently if you want, 5E is LOADED with that after all.

 

[DND_Reborn]

@Flamestrike , @Minigiant ,

Here: May 2016 – Page 27 – Sage Advice D&D

QUESTION: When a skill check is easier for one character instead of another do you adjust the DC?

JC's response: "Differences in ability between characters is represented by their stats and things like advantage/disadvantage."

So, if you want to rule Thokk's experiences makes it less likely, apply disadvantage and grant the cleric advantage. Then, you are not denying any player a chance and increasing the chance of success for when you feel character background/experience/whatever warrants it.

Play it how you want, I've done enough.