D&D 5E Characters are not their statistics and abilities

[Azzy]

Hey thanks guys - this is the first time I have felt warm and fuzzy that my preferred playing style is not being dismissed as not being in the spirit of D and D "the RPG game". I have always previously pressed my point so hard because I was seeking acknowledgement that D and D thru the years has favored many different playing styles inc/my own, and that I wasn't being given a seat at the 5e table so to speak.

Look, contrary to the p(ee)ing match that's being waged here, the truth is — as long as you and the rest of your group are enjoying the experience, you're doing it right (however it may be).

Ultimately, D&D is a game and games are made to be enjoyed. Have fun!

 

[Lanliss]

But how does this actually work at the table?

Some systems have "augment" rules, where a successful check (say, a tactics roll) can give a bonus to a later check (say, allies' attack rolls). But D&D doesn't really have that.

Likewise for picking out weaknesses - in some systems a playere can make a perception check to (say) spot a weakness in enemy armour and thereby grant a bonus to him/herself or an ally, but D&D isn't really such a system either.

OK, but now the character's not really a barbarian anymore, is he?

In a more Role play focused game, I would just ask him to act as the leader. He interacts most with NPCs, other players follow his advice, so long as it seems sound, or they know something he doesn't. If I were to add mechanics to it, I probably would add a system for tactics increasing effectiveness, and a way to pick out weaknesses through History or Nature, or any other applicable skill.

As for being a Barbarian, that leads back to what I was saying before. Much like people build Rangers by using a Dex fighter with Outlander, a Barbarian does not only mean Barbarian Player Class, even if that is what he starts as. A Barbarian 10/ Battlemaster X seems like a good start towards an old man finally accepting that he can't swing that axe quite so hard anymore. Maybe it is time to use some of his collected wisdom to help the others hit harder...

 

[Lehrbuch]

This is very table-dependent. Many GMs on these boards, for instance, seem to prepare scenarios or use modules without regard to the particular PCs.

Even if that is the case (and the DM playing the game with complete disregard to the PCs does involve disregarding a lot of what the DMG says is a good idea), the players don't play the game with total disregard to the particular PCs.

If the fighter, for example, is rubbish at the fighty bits (for whatever reason), then the party will use strategy and tactics appropriate to that situation (such as, resting more often, or investing more in healing potions). This just changes the story. But this is not a problem. It just reflects the fact that the story is about the PCs.

The fact that the story would be different, with a different hypothetical set of PCs is true but meaningless.

And at least some tables use "objective" rather than "subjective" DCs

I think you are mistaking the issue here.

If the DC to break down a door is 20 (say), then it is still DC 20 regardless of whether the fighter has STR 8 or STR 15. The STR 8 fighter is 20% less likely to break down the door. But that just means the party is 20% more likely to be telling the story where the fighter doesn't successfully break down the door and the party does something different to overcome the obstacle. Which could have been the story told even if the fighter did have STR 15 (as he could have failed to break down the door too).

 

[Tony Vargas]

OK, but now the character's not really a barbarian anymore, is he?

Unless his Greek has really improved.

 

[pemerton]

If the fighter, for example, is rubbish at the fighty bits (for whatever reason), then the party will use strategy and tactics appropriate to that situation (such as, resting more often, or investing more in healing potions). This just changes the story. But this is not a problem.

<snip>

If the DC to break down a door is 20 (say), then it is still DC 20 regardless of whether the fighter has STR 8 or STR 15. The STR 8 fighter is 20% less likely to break down the door. But that just means the party is 20% more likely to be telling the story where the fighter doesn't successfully break down the door and the party does something different to overcome the obstacle. Which could have been the story told even if the fighter did have STR 15 (as he could have failed to break down the door too).

The issue of "changing the story" isn't what I'm thinking about in my posts.

But you seem to be assuming that the PCs will, somehow or other, overcome the obstacle. Thus, that there will be a story that is not just one of failure.

That assumption holds true at some tables but not all. Sometimes the PCs just fail - or, the device whereby they succeed is a very evident GM-driven Deus Ex Machina. Personally, I don't find that either of these two options produces a very satisfying story, but I've seen plenty of both back in my B/X and AD&D days.

Again, there are RPGs that handle PC failure well - ie it is not just failure. I just feel D&D isn't the best at this. So if the mechanical bonuses are lower enough to no longer fall within the "success range" for the system - and it's clear that, in 5e, this range is pretty broad - then there is an increased likelihood of either stalling through failure, or an apparent need for GM bailouts.

 

[BoldItalic]

...
If the DC to break down a door is 20 (say), then it is still DC 20 regardless of whether the fighter has STR 8 or STR 15. The STR 8 fighter is 20% less likely to break down the door. But that just means the party is 20% more likely to be telling the story where the fighter doesn't successfully break down the door and the party does something different to overcome the obstacle. Which could have been the story told even if the fighter did have STR 15 (as he could have failed to break down the door too).

The DC is 20 because the DM has chosen to make it 20. But in 5e, there is no absolute rule that says doors have to be DC20. If all the PCs have poor strength and the DM wants to maintain the play value of doors which are difficult for them, he can make the DC lower. He can made a dungeon where the doors are old and rotten and only DC18. The players can still enjoy the uncertainty of knowing that, while they have a fair chance to break down doors, enough to make it worth making the attempt, they will not always succeed or always fail. This is a change from the old days, when there was a fixed % chance of breaking down a door, determined entirely by the PC's strength score with no wriggle room for the DM.

 

[Tony Vargas]

But you seem to be assuming that the PCs will, somehow or other, overcome the obstacle. Thus, that there will be a story that is not just one of failure.

Or, y'know, they could 'fail forward...'

... I'm sure I've heard that somewhere before...

 

[Lehrbuch]

The issue of "changing the story" isn't what I'm thinking about in my posts.

But you seem to be assuming that the PCs will, somehow or other, overcome the obstacle. Thus, that there will be a story that is not just one of failure.

Sometimes the story is one of failing at a particular thing. But it is relatively rare that this is the end of story (i.e. a TPK). Even if the DM is a bitch.

The players are playing the PCs they have, not the PCs they did not create. So, the players make plans and attempt things within the capacity of their actual PCs.

Ultimately, a fighter that misses a lot, for example, is just a fighter (and possibly a party) that ends up either needing more healing (because combat rounds went on for longer) or avoiding combat more often (because it is more of a liability). This is not a failure, it is just a party with different tactics.

Again, there are RPGs that handle PC failure well - ie it is not just failure. I just feel D&D isn't the best at this.

There are certainly systems where failing forward is a much bigger thing. However, in-play, D&D is actually quite forgiving of PCs who are less capable. It's only really in white-room theorising that PC capability seems to make much difference.

 

[Lehrbuch]

The DC is 20 because the DM has chosen to make it 20. But in 5e, there is no absolute rule that says doors have to be DC20.

Of course not, but it doesn't really matter, that's the illusion. In play, the door could be DC 20 or 15. The fighter trying to break it down could be STR 8 or STR 18.

However, when the fighter tries to break the door down one or two things will happen. In play, the player of the fighter only rolls once. Either the roll is made and the door breaks down, or the roll is not made and the door doesn't break down. The story continues from one of those two states.

 

[pemerton]

Or, y'know, they could 'fail forward...'

... I'm sure I've heard that somewhere before...

Sure - but there are limits on fail forward in D&D compared to other systems; and in 5e compared to 4e, given the lack of skill challenges.