Why PCs should be competent, or "I got a lot of past in my past"

[Wolfpack48]

Makes sense. The way I always handled it in our D&D games when I was running was to give max hit points (including CON bonus) at first level. We also house ruled negative -10 (- CON bonus) for death as some padding for early adventures.

But then we always enjoyed zero to hero in our early campaigns.

 

[GMMichael]

I’d be interested in knowing from those who want competent characters how you view (in general) negative outcomes in combat or skill checks.

Those who live by the sword die by the sword.

How do you react if your character is injured or incapacitated?

If the GM asked me to roll for something my character could easily do, I'd either lightly protest or roll my eyes and search for reasons to stay in the game.

When they don’t succeed in climbing the cliff?

My character doesn't climb cliffs. He sends the bard up with a rope.

Even competent characters, regardless of what level they happen to start with or how high their skill modifiers happen to be, can flub their skill checks by rolling low on a d20. The opposite is also true, you can be incompetent and roll high on a d20. It all depends on how the dice are rolled and how you role-play the results.

Is this the old "criticals happen on skill checks" misconception? If I flub something, "regardless of level," I'm playing the wrong RPG.

 

[Wolfpack48]

Those who live by the sword die by the sword.


If the GM asked me to roll for something my character could easily do, I'd either lightly protest or roll my eyes and search for reasons to stay in the game.


My character doesn't climb cliffs. He sends the bard up with a rope.


Is this the old "criticals happen on skill checks" misconception? If I flub something, "regardless of level," I'm playing the wrong RPG.

Yep, rolls aren’t needed for trivial things.

But are you saying your character should never have chance to flub a difficult test?

 

[Corinnguard]

Is this the old "criticals happen on skill checks" misconception? If I flub something, "regardless of level," I'm playing the wrong RPG.

It's not. You can flub any skill check if it fails to be greater than the DC put forth in any 5e material the DM uses for their role-playing session. I think you would be playing the wrong RPG if you didn't flub a skill check every now and then.

A person can't be competent all of the time.

 

[Maxperson]

Those who live by the sword die by the sword.

The Silver Horde would like a word with you.

If the GM asked me to roll for something my character could easily do, I'd either lightly protest or roll my eyes and search for reasons to stay in the game.

Yep.

My character doesn't climb cliffs. He sends the bard up with a rope.

What a waste of a perfectly good bard. You don't use them on cliffs. You send them into dark unknown caves to find out what's inside.

 

[Corinnguard]

What a waste of a perfectly good bard. You don't use them on cliffs. You send them into dark unknown caves to find out what's inside.

I thought that was what henchmen like Nodwick were for. It says so in their job description.

 

[Staffan]

Yep, rolls aren’t needed for trivial things.

But are you saying your character should never have chance to flub a difficult test?

The chance to flub a difficult test in my area of expertise should be very small. You don't challenge Parker by giving her a difficult lock or a complicated laser grid to worm her way through. You challenge her, on occasion, by giving her a situation where she must talk her way out. And you provide plenty of opportunities for her to style when it does come to locks, pickpocketing, and acrobatics.

 

[Maxperson]

I thought that was what henchmen like Nodwick were for. It says so in their job description.

Bards are free, though. All you have to do is promise them a "share" of the loot(lute?) inside.

 

[Staffan]

Oh, and another thing I thought of: many people here use D&D as their sole frame of reference. That might be my fault because I started with a comparison with D&D. But the thread is in TTRPG General for a reason. I think getting D&D to abandon the zero-to-hero narrative (particularly in the fighting parts) is likely a lost cause, but there are plenty of other games around that for some inscrutable reason seem to think it is the only way to go.

 

[Staffan]

Bards are free, though. All you have to do is promise them a "share" of the loot(lute?) inside.

I still nerdrage a little when I remember that the 3.0 bard/rogue splatbook was called Song & Silence when Lute & Loot was right there.