D&D 5E How has your personal experience/expertise affected rulings?

[BookBarbarian]

I agree with the OP, but find it's not much of an issue if the Players are describing what they're character is doing, and what they are trying to accomplice before I call for a check and assign a DC.

So, using your example, if a Player said their character was going to start a fire in in the rain by finding a piece of fatwood rather than set an impossibly high DC, I might call for a Nature or Survival check for finding the piece of fatwood and starting the fire. On a success they start the fire and are fine, on a failure they start the fire, but it took so long that the party members incurred a level of exhaustion. If they describer there approach well they might get situational advantage. If they describe it really well, they might succeed with no check at all.

This way I don't need to use my expertise to set DCs completely arbitrarily, but can leverage my players expertise to set them somewhat arbitrarily.

Yes, this does encourage a type of metagaming. No, I don't care about that.

 

[Shasarak]

As to starting a fire with sticks - I had to do that once in Boy Scout camp. None of us had ever done it. Took us 40 minutes and we were the only team to get it done. Tried it again later with what we had learned and the second time it took eight minutes. I remember thinking it was pretty good for 12-year-olds.

Of course, we had good equipment and it was dry being Montana in the summer. As I recall, we used a notched wood block, a straight stick, a strip of leather, gloves, cottonwood cotton (because if its high surface area to volume), wood, and a knife to shave off bits of that wood.

Personally I would have tried matches because a Scout should always be prepared!

 

[Lanefan]

I use AC 13 with a max dex bonus of 3

Probably 14 or 15 with dex 2 would still be justified but I got other armor covering that range. It is definitely a medium armor, its nearly as strong as a breastplate but a bit more flexible.

Corollary question: how noisy is brigandine?

 

[Fractal Rabbit]

Hm. The only time I think that personal experience has entered into it has been when I, as a PC, tried to convince my DM that aerated sawdust was flammable. I ended up having to show him a video to convince him, then had barrels of sawdust hooked up to a bellows from the forge as part of a siege defense thing.

As a DM, if someone can come up with a good reason, a good explanation, or just something that is awesome, I'll usually let it go with a roll of some sort. I like shenanigans like that, though. My old DM did not.

See, I enjoy those kind of shenanigans as well. I have allowed players to use flour for a small explosive in the past as well. The character had a background in Alchemy so I allowed it.

An old DM (who I am still friends with) HATED that kind of thing. It would never have flown, regardless of skills or background because it got in the way of his "Fantasy being Fantasy".

I once wanted my Druid to make a camouflage ghillie cloak. He wouldn't allow it at first. And when I finally wore him down, he wouldn't give any kind of bonus or benefits. Madness!

 

[Soul Stigma]

I always assume the characters are much better at what they do than I am. It's a fantasy world, after all.

The sorcerer in my campaign took the Outlander background, which stipulates she can find enough food and water for the party each day in the wilderness, no Ranger required. Further, she has a strong sense of direction and memory of paths taken from the same background. So, even she, in my mind, could make fire in the rain or build a shelter for the group.

I use that example because it's easy to gloss over the perks of a background and think too much about what a class can do. I know your point wasn't that a party lacking a Ranger is always lost, but I thought I'd add to the point of characters doing things beyond or in spite of my experience.

To the main point, then, I feel like real life doesn't need to inform the game. Climbing being strength based is fine by me. I try not to let personal knowledge or experience impact rulings simply because it's a fantasy game where lots of things that don't make sense in the real world are right at home.

 

[Coroc]

It should be quite stealthy, the metal is on the inside of a a linen fabric. Of course when the rivets pling against some other equip ... I still would say no disadvantage.

 

[MichaelSomething]

One time I went swimming and ran into a shark. I punched it once and it swam away. So if a player wanted to punch a shark in my game, I would allow it.

 

[Imaculata]

To the main point, then, I feel like real life doesn't need to inform the game. Climbing being strength based is fine by me. I try not to let personal knowledge or experience impact rulings simply because it's a fantasy game where lots of things that don't make sense in the real world are right at home.

I would argue that the more things make sense, the more believable your fantasy world is.

 

[MNblockhead]

Personally I find the skill system in 5E ludicrously unrealistic, it's much too difficult to succeed on an "average" DC 15 check. To me, if you're "proficient" in a skill, then average should be damn near automatic. Only high difficulties should pose any problems. If you have about a 50/50 chance of hitting that DC 15 skill check, which most PCs have in 5E, then you are NOT proficient and have no business saying you are.

I'm a paramedic, and if I screwed up 50% of my calls, I would've been fired a long time ago. Would you trust a doctor who only diagnosed people correctly 50% of the time? Or a mechanic who fixes your car correctly only half the time? Utter nonsense. That's why I use a system of passive checks instead. I don't even make my group roll if the DC is less than or equal to 10 + skill modifier.

The rules state that you should only bother making the players roll skill checks where there is a significant chance for failure.

As DM, you also have the authority to set the DC to a reasonable level. If you want a character proficient in a skill to still have a small chance for failure, set the DC to 5 or just make the roll and only fail on a 1.

One way I make proficiency matter more in my games is that in many situations I'll ask the player if their character is proficient in a skill appropriate to what they are trying to accomplish and, unless the challenge is exceptionally difficult (they have to perform in combat conditions, under extreme time pressure, etc.) they just pass. If they are not proficient, they have to roll. It keeps the game moving, avoids the disappointment of bad roles for fairly mundane skill checks (i.e., create frustration while adding little to the narrative), but it still makes the skill matter.

 

[snickersnax]

I'm a gritty realism fan, so I love this thread.

Here are a few things I do..

When I pull cookies out of the oven with my oven mitt. I don't take any damage...so flat damage resistance rather than 1/2 damage.

I have a lot of RL experience with armor and fighting. So I do armor as damage reduction as well.