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

[pemerton]

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.

This goes back to Rufus, and what the floor is.

I think there is a floor in D&D, because players can't make the game go forward if they're not succeeding.

 

[ccs]

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).

If it's just a normal wooden dungeon door? Then the only real question is how long it takes me to get through it.
Do I kick it down in one go or do I spend a few rounds chopping it down? Either way works for me....

 

[shoak1]

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.

Translated into miniatures-combat-oriented-playstyle-language: "Great story - we wiped cuz Mikes character sucks - thanks Mike for contributing massively to that story!"

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.

Translated: "No guys - I know it would be cool to fight that dragon, but we can't cuz Mikes character sucks!"

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.

Translated: "Hey guys - Mikes fighter goes down in combat like a glass pea-shooter, so we're gonna have to buy 20 healing pots instead of that cool new weapon for Al's GWM PM killing machine! Now I know you guys are p___ed, but consider how the theme of Mike sucking really contributes to the story.."

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.

Yes, if you use encounter guidelines as they are D and D is super easy and you can beat the game w/1 or more suck PCs, true. But my players would yawn at that. They like to be challenged, and I dial up the difficulty.

In the end, the answer to the OP question is just "it depends on your playstyle". If you are more role-play oriented, factors like what his aunt did to him at age 12 might be more relevant to "who he is" that his 8 STR. But not at my table At my table the conversation is more about "dude, you got sentinal last level right?" than about "my character is going thru a personal crisis due to blah blah blah or something [insert your own actual role-playing dialog here]"

 

[shoak1]

Now I will say sometimes a guy sucking really DOES make for good story telling. Our friend Mike always makes sucky characters, the stuff of legends. And we love reminiscing about his exploits: "Remember that time Mike ran over to try to save the mage and he got 1-shot by that skeleton's AoO - fricking hilarious!!!!! [laughter ensues]. Now we allhappen to really like Mike, and he is family - so we put up w/it. But if some new guy off the street comes into our game sucking? Forget about it [shoak1 executes a throat cutting motion].....

 

[OB1]

This goes back to Rufus, and what the floor is.

I think there is a floor in D&D, because players can't make the game go forward if they're not succeeding.

I think this is an interesting question.

I would say the floor would be a party that can't get past easy (as defined by the DMG) encounters at least 51% of the time. Such a group would have to be extraordinarily careful about getting into combat, but with careful play should still be able to advance in levels. And level advancement far surpasses ability score modifiers in terms of combat ability. A level 10 fighter with 6 STR, DEX and CON would still be a near god compared to the average soldier or even a veteran.

 

[BoldItalic]

Here is a little narrative about three characters. Under the hood, there are several skill checks going on, some successful and others not. Can you tell, just from the narrative, what the characters' stats were? Or is the outcome not very dependent on the precise numbers?

"Stand back!" roared Ardwulf as he threw his massive shoulder against the door. "There is not a door in the land that can withstand the strength of a Longblade!" There was a mighty thud but, strangely, the door did not move. Ardwulf called upon the spirits of his ancestors and threw himself at it again. Once more, the door did not move. Baffled, he flew into a rage and cursed the gods with an oath terrible to hear, but it availed him nothing. The door did not yield.

Twinklestaff made to speak but Sister Healthia cut him short, making a sign to avert evil as she sought to calm Ardwulf with soothing words. "Nay, curse not the gods lest thou bringst ill fortune upon thy quest," she admonished. "Yonder door will surely open if it be our destiny to pass through, for is there not a mystic rune inscribed upon the lintel?"

"I was trying to tell you," said the gnome reproachfully. "This stone is dwarven work from the elder times and the rune is hard to read, even for us wizards who have studied the lore of doorways". Then he made a few passes with his staff and uttered mystical syllables under his beard. The runes flowed, dissolved and reformed into a word that all could, of a sudden, understand.

And the word was "PULL".

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'm suddenly reminded of this beefcake 1/2Orc bounty hunter (Ranger) I was playing who charged to throw his shoulder into a locked wooden door, just as the party's thief succeeded at unlocking and opening it. The door fairly flew off the hinges as he blasted through.

...and my PC took a header into the chasm that lay just a few feet on the door's other side. (The DM gave me a chance to grab the "safety" rope as he tumbled, and I rolled a 2.)

Stats didn't play much of a role that time. Nor did his personality & quirks. Just a bad roll on an icosahedron. At that point, my hat of d02 had no limit.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

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.

If you're playing that kind of game, then sure, but for a lot of people that sort of thing has no appeal.

It's not the job of the DM to ensure that the tasks which the PCs face are reasonable for them. It's the job of the DM to adjudicate uncertainty; and in the role of setting-builder, it is the job of the DM to design a world; but above all, it is the job of the DM to remain fair and impartial.

The DM can build a world that has a dungeon with old and rotten doors, but they shouldn't decide that the doors are old and rotten because the PCs have low Strength. That would be meta-gaming, on par with the random monster aiming its frost breath at the one PC who doesn't have cold resistance, when it has no way of determining such a thing.

There's no joy to be had in exploring a world that was specifically tailored for you to explore, or at least, exploring the Matrix is not nearly as meaningful as exploring the real (in-game) world. You lose a lot in authenticity, when the DM contrives obstacles for you; whether the DM intends for those obstacles to be trivial or difficult, or perfectly tailored for your level, simply knowing that it was set up for you makes it hard to care about the result. Your success isn't your own, in such a case, but a result of the DM's bias that you should or should not succeed.

 

[BoldItalic]

If you're playing that kind of game, then sure, but for a lot of people that sort of thing has no appeal.

It's not the job of the DM to ensure that the tasks which the PCs face are reasonable for them. It's the job of the DM to adjudicate uncertainty; and in the role of setting-builder, it is the job of the DM to design a world; but above all, it is the job of the DM to remain fair and impartial.

The DM can build a world that has a dungeon with old and rotten doors, but they shouldn't decide that the doors are old and rotten because the PCs have low Strength. That would be meta-gaming, on par with the random monster aiming its frost breath at the one PC who doesn't have cold resistance, when it has no way of determining such a thing.

There's no joy to be had in exploring a world that was specifically tailored for you to explore, or at least, exploring the Matrix is not nearly as meaningful as exploring the real (in-game) world. You lose a lot in authenticity, when the DM contrives obstacles for you; whether the DM intends for those obstacles to be trivial or difficult, or perfectly tailored for your level, simply knowing that it was set up for you makes it hard to care about the result. Your success isn't your own, in such a case, but a result of the DM's bias that you should or should not succeed.

I disagree with almost every sentence, but I recognise your point of view because I used to think like that.

 

[pemerton]

I would say the floor would be a party that can't get past easy (as defined by the DMG) encounters at least 51% of the time.

Is it possible to build 5e PCs who don't meet this floor?

Maybe, I guess, but you'd have to work pretty hard at it, wouldn't you? Would a party of Rufus's be below this floor.
[MENTION=6787650]Hemlock[/MENTION], you are following along and have excellent 5e build/resolution intuitions. What do you think?