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

[Sadras]

Who the heck takes feather fall?

Our table's sorcerer and he has saved everyone from a few things I've thrown at them. The bastard!
One time a living house that was affected by it's connection to the Shadowfell created a Reversed Gravity effect on the party.
Another time a huge remorhaz tore through the snow-capped ground, sending PCs who failed their balance checks into the icy lake below.

It is a good spell.

 

[Garthanos]

I don't disagree that putting things like that in the hands of the DM can cause variations in rulings from one DM to the next.

I seem less bothered by intra table variation than other things

• player facing inspiration for stunts they might want to do. (regardless if improvised is a bit more erratic)
• common grounds between dm and player expectations about would be possible, that could be found by having read the acrobat skill description or a list of dcs in PF2 or when DM/Player read the skill power or whatever. In 5e I could be hunting for the monk abilities which demands more system knowledge to find.
• more consistent adjudication across tables (no not exactly the same just moreso)
  • Gaming with strangers online just got a whole lot better because less is pulled out of the dms little red car or is it magic hat?
• the game designers create skill applications that
  • do not call for constant adjudication which reduces the DMs work load. 4e and PF2
  • allow better balance based on level (ie effects comparable to other abilities across the board will be similar utility and similar level) ahead of time
  • And in 4e at least not PF2 a commonly available resource expenditures (or even adjusted ones the skill power might only affect the ally and one other and be an encounter ability, but the spell could be whole party and a daily)

For me the act of either lunging after and preventing or breaking an allies fall is very much classic heroic fiction and even in 4e there would have been variation in rulings because yes there isn't a perfect match up for the exact desire, but there is player facing ability that the acrobat player would see which showed an ability to reduce their own falling damage. (not someone else's but the idea of what you might accomplish with the skill is also sprinkled in as skill powers which might do the same ie inspire the player and maybe guide the DM - I rather wish those were part of the original design of 4e and many DMs when they were first introduced did things like let characters take one at level 1)

I made up a skill power that makes "cat fall rescue" perfectly reliable for a 4e acrobat a level 2 skill power but of course I would certainly still allow the somewhat less reliable improvisation (which would look similar to what you said you would have ruled for 5e and a player at my table and yours might not even notice we were in different D&Ds ) - I was able to do this with confidence it would be balanced and not over shadowing a class ability

Oh and there be variations.
The skilled mountain climber throws a line with a hook into the allies armor as the character falls off the ledge. The skilled hunter uses a controlled fast volley to pin a hunting net up to save the falling ally. The athletic fighter leaps down below cushioning the fall on his extraordinary sinews or catches the side after grabbing the ally and they slide a bit down not falling but rather perched on the side.

Our table's sorcerer and he has saved everyone from a few things I've thrown at them. The bastard!
One time a living house that was affected by it's connection to the Shadowfell created a Reversed Gravity effect on the party.
Another time a huge remorhaz tore through the snow-capped ground, sending PCs who failed their balance checks into the icy lake below.

It is a good spell.

many times more potent than the 4e analog and I actually like that change because its a team benefit and as always situational ... It actually makes letting a player improvise the move we are talking about and saving one ally in a sort of at-will way less problematic. In 4e if I wanted I would be able to allow the guy to exert spending a healing surge to save his ally or even in a manner like the 5e paladin smites expend a differing skill power.

 

[Li Shenron]

Perspective A: 5e created a system that empowers DM's to when determining the results of the actions of characters.
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.

Something tells me the discussion is a bit moot...

I liked it when 3e gave me a fixed list of DCs for various challenges, but it did NOT make me as a DM feel less in power. It helped me connect the narrative with the mechanics, just by looking a table up. I would certainly appreciate such kind of tables be provided in 5e.

But in terms of DM empowerment, I have no difference. In 3e, if a table said that "bash a wooden door" is DC 15 and "bash a metal door" is DC 20, I would still be in power of deciding whether to have a wooden door or a metal door in order to end with the DC I want. In 5e, I decide more directly if I want DC 15 or 20, and maybe I have a bit more freedom with the door description, but the players will end up with the same DC I want.

Tables would be useful to me because indeed they would help me be consistent in those descriptions, so that I don't accidentally mix up wooden and metal doors because I don't remember which DC I used on the previous session... But the downside is that they also force a specific narrative: with an "official" table of doors DC, the DM does not feel so easily entitled to narrate a situation the way she wants. For example, what if a DM feels that iron doors shouldn't even exist because she wants a medieval feel to her settings? With an official table, she's stuck with DC 15 everywhere, and maybe that's not appropriate from a gamist point of view.

 

[Garthanos]

Something tells me the discussion is a bit moot...

I liked it when 3e gave me a fixed list of DCs for various challenges, but it did NOT make me as a DM feel less in power. It helped me connect the narrative with the mechanics, just by looking a table up. I would certainly appreciate such kind of tables be provided in 5e.

But in terms of DM empowerment, I have no difference. In 3e, if a table said that "bash a wooden door" is DC 15 and "bash a metal door" is DC 20, I would still be in power of deciding whether to have a wooden door or a metal door in order to end with the DC I want. In 5e, I decide more directly if I want DC 15 or 20, and maybe I have a bit more freedom with the door description, but the players will end up with the same DC I want.

Or you could decide the metal door has special hinge work that the local genius designed to absorb more impact.

Tables would be useful to me because indeed they would help me be consistent in those descriptions, so that I don't accidentally mix up wooden and metal doors because I don't remember which DC I used on the previous session... But the downside is that they also force a specific narrative: with an "official" table of doors DC, the DM does not feel so easily entitled to narrate a situation the way she wants. For example, what if a DM feels that iron doors shouldn't even exist because she wants a medieval feel to her settings? With an official table, she's stuck with DC 15 everywhere, and maybe that's not appropriate from a gamist point of view.

Nah there are always details and variations you could add like the wood door is made of teak wood or though it has metal bindings it has rust build up in locations or "even "magic" those DCs are a starting point just like the skill or utility powers in 4e. Very similar value really. Level the door up with world appropriate elements if you want it encourages you to elabore the difference from your world to a baseline the game created for you .

 

[Li Shenron]

Trained isn't as meaningful as it was. The DM looks at the situation and action, then decides if training would apply.

"Trained" was a good rule in 3e, it worked for me. It only has 2 downsides:

1) it encouraged some players into jack-of-all-trades just to "unlock" more skill uses, because in 3e it only takes a single skill point or two to get the first skill "rank" and become "trained"; then it can lead to characters who can do a lot more things between combats but are overall really bad at them, so they try all the time and fail mostly, thus wasting time (this would not be a problem in 5e because being proficient in a skill is usually at the expense of another skill)

2) a lot of people just don't like being told that their characters cannot even try something

Because 5e wanted to be inclusive, it mostly allows to try anything with skills and doesn't normally require to be proficient. That however is not stopping me as a DM to actually DO require it, because even if the PHB doesn't say so, there is always the rule that the DM decides to allow a check. So I decide to sometimes allow it only when a proficient character tries it.

 

[Li Shenron]

Or you could decide the metal door has special hinge work that the local genius designed to absorb more impact.

Nah there are always details and variations you could add like the wood door is made of teak wood or though it has metal bindings it has rust build up in locations or "even "magic" those DCs are a starting point just like the skill or utility powers in 4e. Very similar value really. Level the door up with world appropriate elements if you want it encourages you to elabore the difference from your world to a baseline the game created for you .

Yeah but again what's the difference between 3e and 5e? I did this sort of adjustments all the time in both editions. Petty players may ask for you to point to the table to justify your decision, and that's the only downside with tables and maybe one of the reasons why they avoided them in 5e. But as I said, I never felt the table took "empowerment" away from me.

 

[Krachek]

In that one DM might handle the checks differently from another DM

one solution is to develop trust and partnership with Dm.

 

[Garthanos]

But as I said, I never felt the table took "empowerment" away from me.

They are tools in my opinion they help you ... and as you pointed out can even help you maintain consistency at your table and accelerate adjudication.

 

[Oofta]

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.

It's comparing apples and oranges. They aren't in competition with each other, it's a team game. I feel sorry for groups where it feels like a competition.

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

Fighters can do amazing things. Happens all the time. They just can't cast spells disguised as mundane action. I'm not playing 4E.

 

[Garthanos]

one solution is to develop trust and partnership with Dm.

Right now I trust the vast majority of DMs to be bad at making balanced unguided/poorly guided on the fly decisions call me a cynic but it happened the first time I ever played in the 70s and till 5e decided it was a retro clone it had become less and less a problem as the game tools improved. Like my epically difficult 5e one man affecting feather fall... I expect that to happen all over the place and most people to just throw a spell at a problem.