D&D 5E Common sense isn't so common and the need for tolerance

[Saeviomagy]

Succeeding 90% of the time at something where success is not certain sounds mostly like 'easy' from here.

It might be if that was the chance of success for Joe average. Or an apprentice. Or even a typical trained professional.

But that's actually the chance of success for only 3 character classes in the game, in their double-specialties, for the most naturally talented individuals of specific races who are known to be good at such things.

Most characters who are supposed to be 'good' at the task in question will fail 20% of the time. And again - that's for one of roughly 4 things that a talented individual of a specific race does well.

Satyrn's answer goes some of the way to helping with that... simply renaming the difficulties helps somewhat. Not entirely, because that same "tricky" task can be done by the untalented, untrained peasant 50% of the time, but it definitely helps.

Personally I don't see much of a problem with the 'low chance of failure = 5%' granularity issue - that sort of discernment gets lost in the noise. It would be incredibly hard for someone who didn't know the mechanics being used to conclusively identify the difference between a 1% granularity and a 5% granularity during a typical game.

I think based on what you've written that I'm much more of a champion of automatic success than you are. In fact, I'd go so far as to say a skill system is completely broken if there does not exist the possibility of automatic success (or at least 99.999%) once a certain level of skill is reached.

5e sort of breaks that too - automatic success becomes something the DM decides, not something the numbers indicate. The DM ruling automatic success or failure becomes crucial to the skill system not being ridiculous, and the game itself gives no guidance as to when those rulings should be made. Hence arguments about things like knowledge checks (where the stupid barbarian with no proficiency in arcana "has" to be banned from attempting the check, because his chance of success on a moderate check is still pretty good compared with the high-intelligence, trained wizard).

The players' place in 5e is to come up with an action, not declare a skill or start a debate...

I disagree and so does the DMG.

Often, players ask whether they can apply a skill proficiency to an ability check. If a player can provide a good justification for why a character's training and aptitude in a skill should apply to the check, go ahead and allow it, rewarding the player's creative thinking.

The game isn't a one-man show, and I am not infallible. Accepting some player input makes for a less confrontational and all-round better game in my experience.

 

[Tony Vargas]

But that's actually the chance of success for only 3 character classes in the game, in their double-specialties, for the most naturally talented individuals of specific races who are known to be good at such things.

Most characters who are supposed to be 'good' at the task in question will fail 20% of the time. And again - that's for one of roughly 4 things that a talented individual of a specific race does well.

Maybe it's just the 'easy' that's misleading you? Setting the DC comes after you determine whether the outcome is in doubt, otherwise you just narrate what happens. If a task is something that a trained, modestly talented individual shouldn't fail anywhere near 20% of the time, if it's closer to 5% or less, then don't call for the check.

Satyrn's answer goes some of the way to helping with that... simply renaming the difficulties helps somewhat. Not entirely, because that same "tricky" task can be done by the untalented, untrained peasant 50% of the time, but it definitely helps.

Nod. That's BA. That peasant's arrow can hit a dragon now and then, too. Things are just compressed a bit.

That's one good reason to simply not call for a check, much of the time.

I disagree and so does the DMG.

That's still after an ability check has been called for, and it's not a player declaring a skill use, it's a player declaring an action, then asking if a proficiency can be applied.

And, it /is/ in the DMG, the DM can follow that advice, or not.

5e sort of breaks that too - automatic success becomes something the DM decides, not something the numbers indicate.

YES! Exactly that. The numbers do not dictate to the DM. The DM chooses to use the numbers as he sees fit.

In 3.5, you could know for a fact that your diplomancer's check was high enough to make anyone his friend, every time. In 5e, you cannot.

The game isn't a one-man show, and I am not infallible. Accepting some player input makes for a less confrontational and all-round better game in my experience.

Of course, no one's infallible, but DMs have a veneer of infallibility because their rulings are it. If you narrate success, the player succeeded, you might be 'wrong' but it's what happened. The world treats your fallibility as if you were infallible...

...or something like that...

 

[iserith]

That's still after an ability check has been called for, and it's not a player declaring a skill use, it's a player declaring an action, then asking if a proficiency can be applied.

Right - that's an important distinction. In my games, I usually call for just the ability check and leave it to the player to apply the proficiency they think fits best with their action. The exceptions are when the rules call for specific proficiencies applying to the action (such as with a grapple). That's only 6 things for me to remember.

 

[Shasarak]

The key to defeating common sense is to avoid science as an answer. In my campaign for example: astrology is real, the sun revolves around the world, alchemy isn't early chemistry (magic is involved), and maggots spontaneous appear in rotten meat. People who believe in the notion of science are considered charlatans, heretics, or madmen.

Not sure why you could not apply the scientific method to any of those things. Science would be able to prove that the sun revolves around the world, exactly how many eyes of newt a healing potion needs and that maggots dont actually spontaneous appear.

 

[Lanefan]

Not sure why you could not apply the scientific method to any of those things. Science would be able to prove that the sun revolves around the world, exactly how many eyes of newt a healing potion needs and that maggots dont actually spontaneous appear.

And failing that, a simple Commune spell ought to cover it...

 

[Coroc]

Player: My character takes a breath - DM: do a DC1 check constitution ...

 

[Ovinomancer]

Not sure why you could not apply the scientific method to any of those things. Science would be able to prove that the sun revolves around the world, exactly how many eyes of newt a healing potion needs and that maggots dont actually spontaneous appear.

There's a basic assumption here that's unwarranted -- what if the number of eyes of newt really depends on how happy some reality bending god is with your prayers?

 

[Tony Vargas]

There's a basic assumption here that's unwarranted -- what if the number of eyes of newt really depends on how happy some reality bending god is with your prayers?

Similarly, a scientist on Pratchett's Discworld couldn't prove it was round - well, he could prove it was a round, flat, disk...

 

[Satyrn]

Satyrn's answer goes some of the way to helping with that... simply renaming the difficulties helps somewhat. Not entirely, because that same "tricky" task can be done by the untalented, untrained peasant 50% of the time, but it definitely helps.

I just want to indulge in a little sidebar.

I don't use the skill check mechanics to model the greater world in any way (Saelorn might hate me! ). For me, the rules are there to represent adventurers doing adventurer stuff.

What's tricky (formerly known as easy) for an adventurer might simply be out of the realm of possibility for peasants. For example, in Die Hard, John MacClane's leap off the roof tied to the firehorse was tricky for him, but would be certain death for the hostages. Likewise, his elevator shaft leap would be Challenging for him while still being certain death for the hostages.

 

[Shasarak]

There's a basic assumption here that's unwarranted -- what if the number of eyes of newt really depends on how happy some reality bending god is with your prayers?

Which is exactly what the scientific method would be able to tell you. Its Alchemy, its not Rocket Science.