D&D 5E Skills and Ability Checks -- Perspective on Consistency vs DM Empowerment

[Tony Vargas]

Not part of the original conversation, but unlike 3E & 4E (where there are detailed rules for DMs), 5E has returned to the OD&D and AD&D roots, where the DM has final say.

Oh, the DM had final say in 4e (no pressing need to exercise it, all that often, perhaps) and even 3.5 (though, it seemed, there was excessive social pressure to cleave to the RaW, Rule 0 was a thing).
In 5e, the DM often has the only say. The rules offer nothing so it's all on the DM, or the rules are ambiguous enough that they must first be interpreted, by the DM, judged applicable, by the DM, judged good/bad or indifferent by the DM, and over-ruled temporarily or replaced with a variant by the DM, then the results of applying said rulings narrated by the DM.

That's some serious Empowerment.

The negative of this is that like back in the day, being a good DM takes time, practice, and experience.

Well, the upshot. Time, practice, & experience make you a good DM in other ways, too, not just good at dealing with an inadequate ruleset. It's a winnowing effect, you get mostly good DMs DMing (and, of course, some determinedly bad ones) that way, as those not otherwise up to the challenge usually figure out which side of the screen to stay on.

Back in the day, part of the job as a DM was to seek out potential DMs to teach. You'd guide them and help them learn the rules, how to tune their style, and how to adjust on the fly.

A "DM Mentor" made all the difference, to me, back in the day.

 

[Oofta]

I fall pretty clearly into perspective A. I think trying to come up with one system of DCs that can apply across all tables and all situations is a never-ending rabbit hole of exceptions and clarifications. Ultimately it didn't even really matter that much, it just moved where the decision was made.

For example IIRC 3.5 had a table with DCs for climbing. Everything from 0 to 25(?) was covered with examples. But then there were modifiers and adjustments and explanations. Ultimately it didn't really matter though because it was the DM who decided what kind of wall needed to be climbed. Was that a steep slope? A craggy surface with plenty of handholds? Was the wall icy, was it windy, was it a Tuesday? Add all that stuff up and you get a DC.

It just shortcuts a whole lot of needless calculation to say it's going to be a difficult DC 20 and come up with some justification if you need one. You end up at the same end point anyway. The wall isn't real, it's whatever the DM wants it to be.

As far as judging what PCs can accomplish I do use reality as a rough baseline. Then I crank it up to Action Movie possible. Depending on the campaign I may crank it up a notch or two above that. But you have to start somewhere, and I don't care how good you are you can't climb a waterfall in my campaign.

 

[Garthanos]

In 5e, you can, as DM, make that happen: by narrating success for the superman, and narrating failure for the everyman, even if the superman is 'only' +11.

Just another non-tool

 

[Tony Vargas]

Just another non-tool

The system lacks a tool, or the DM is not a tool?

 

[Garthanos]

I fall pretty clearly into perspective A. I think trying to come up with one system of DCs that can apply across all tables and all situations is a never-ending rabbit hole of exceptions and clarifications.

I want a baseline that I can adjust off of which I can share with the players so when I say I want to make this baseline a bit more legendary or generally mythic or even more down to earth but right now nothing there dude I think the baseine should attempt to balance character utility with what can be accomplish by other subsystems like spells and class abilities. They do have some really really mundane things defined so absolutely no clue where the balance point of utility between skill user vs a spell user is it must not be those.... honestly a situational level 1 spell is often 5 times what I might readily allow a trained character to do if I am basing it at all on realism... yup you throw a net out and pin it with 4 arrows in a controlled volley mr ranger and save the entire party from taking nasty fall damage. Is analogous to a level one spell. The ranger is getting volley at level 7 in 5e (what feels like unrealistic precise full draw volley but what the hey he is level 7), And though the 4e one of the right flavor has a weaker form of volley at level one. Would you allow that improvisation to match the level 1 spell and at what level would you allow it if so.

 

[Garthanos]

I think if I dm'd 5e and constantly allowed raw attribute use to exceed spell casting and step on class abilities toes at every turn in significant ways that would vastly impact play experience

For instance
Want to attack as many times as possible in a round at level 1 how about a dex (athletics) check for 4? No need for level gating really if its a 20th level character ability I will increase the difficulty by 1 per 5 levels that ought to cover it. I mean I have seen videos of very young archers in videos perform 4 full draw accurate shots in 6 seconds so its realistic. And your character has probably been learning his or her trade since he was 8 years old that is realistic right? Reality is supposed to be the be all end all baseline right? We do not need to look at what other classes can do to allow an improvised action right?
The fighter maneuvers free every attack ? if you like just describe it to me and I like it no skill check (and maybe you can get an extra attribute bonus to those attacks too) otherwise a str,dex or charisma one depending on the maneuver. You can now do any monk movement enhancement with a simple check double your jumping distance no problem and fall damage free or deflect arrows with a raw dex check all good.

Because you know those resources and design choices arent meaningful or important to anyone.

 

[Krachek]

Perspective B: 5e failed to create consistency by leaving it in the hands of the DM's, and not having a listed standard prevents players from knowing what their characters can do.

What do you define consistency?
all stuck or lock doors having the same dc all over the world?
i hope not.
i don’t see a problem Dm assigning different DC to different situation.

 

[Oofta]

I want a baseline that I can adjust off of which I can share with the players so when I say I want to make this baseline a bit more legendary or generally mythic or even more down to earth but right now nothing there dude I think the baseine should attempt to balance character utility with what can be accomplish by other subsystems like spells and class abilities. They do have some really really mundane things defined so absolutely no clue where the balance point of utility between skill user vs a spell user is it must not be those.... honestly a situational level 1 spell is often 5 times what I might readily allow a trained character to do if I am basing it at all on realism... yup you throw a net out and pin it with 4 arrows in a controlled volley mr ranger and save the entire party from taking nasty fall damage. Is analogous to a level one spell. The ranger is getting volley at level 7 in 5e (what feels like unrealistic precise full draw volley but what the hey he is level 7), And though the 4e one of the right flavor has a weaker form of volley at level one. Would you allow that improvisation to match the level 1 spell and at what level would you allow it if so.

In my campaign martial characters don't compete with spell casters. They have their own niche, their own strengths.

At a higher level they can be Batman but they will never have super powers in disguise.

I like that 5E doesn't play like a cartoon when I envision the action. Action movie? Sure. Anime? No.

Previous editions cranked it up to 11 or 12, and you can always do that if you want. It's just not my preference.

 

[Garthanos]

What do you define consistency?
all stuck or lock doors having the same dc all over the world?
i hope not.
i don’t see a problem Dm assigning different DC to different situation.

Consistency between tables is what is referenced Ironically I value less that consistency than I do assuring skill using characters can achieve parity with the utility of say spell casters. In other words though I do like intra-table consistency I value more having consistency between value gained and resource or opportunity choices spent by players within the system. So this conversation was started assuming one value and I am after another and do not feel 5e gives it to me at any level.

 

[Garthanos]

In my campaign martial characters don't compete with spell casters. strengths.

Are your spell casters less useful in combat than the martial ones. Or if they are did they choose it to be that way.
I think CANNOT compete is the right word.

I like that 5E doesn't play like a cartoon when I envision the action.

It seems to me like it doesn't even touch the amazing things real people can do.