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

[Ashrym]

The monk can spend a short resource he has X of to accomplish Y effect but the fighters encounter resource he has Z of ..... if i allow someone to use Skill Q to accomplish something similar to one of those who is getting the short end of the stick? how difficult really should it be? is it going to be too erratic to be even worth trying? (when should it not be)

I mentioned before that someone gave an epic difficulty answer on something and someone else assumed my characters reaction was going to be much earlier in the sequence and didnt have to even do the full follow through. (to help an ally out of falling like someone might do with the feather fall spell the other one assumed you could get the grab in before the fall and the other thought jumping down with a falling friend to cushion there fall was humongous).

One table its a nearly impossible and the other its moderate thing. Because of really slight assumption differences. That I just do not see hashing out in a session zero. I just do not see it. I see first edition my character is drowning over swimming rolls eraticness because the dm was forced to improvise all over again.

I don't disagree with any of this. Session zero sets an expected level of capability, and there can easily be variance between tables. That's because the DM is empowered to set those levels. That was intentional.

I find it's more work to adjust healing or magic levels than it is ability checks. Players might need to explore what the characters can do more in this edition but that was the trade-off. Consistency vs DM empowerment can oppose each other.

Fortunately, campaign books tend to have DC's already applied.

 

[Garthanos]

If there's a roll needed then it's a quick "how hard do I think this is given the circumstances" and the DC is set based on the answer. It's an easy on-the-fly approach.

Guaranteed to be imbalanced not just inconsistent with between DM some will very much trying to consider the things I mentioned and others like me wishing the game gave me some actual tools that werent just advanced system wide sub-system analysis on my part.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I do not believe "anything is possible" is a useful answer.

Sure, that's possible. Anything is.

People know there are opportunity costs of gaining character abilities.

Yep, thus optimization.
….when two (or more) character abilities have the same opportunity cost to acquire, and one is better than the other(s).

People know there are resource costs to using abilities.
People expect those choices to be meaningful and I think it is entirely reasonable to expect them to be balanced against things with lower/greater thresholds of opportunity cost and lower/greater resource expenditures

Well, using some abilities costs formal resources, like a spell slot. Others, like cantrips just take an action, or time more generally. Others use resources indirectly - melee attacks use up your own hps faster than ranged attacks, generally speaking, for instance.

Players can expect the choice to use a formal resource to be meaningful, and, perhaps balanced against alternate uses of the same formal resource (though, they could be 'situational' which leaves a lot of wiggle room in any estimate of relative utility), because such choices usually come with a clearly-defined set of effects and a linked 'fluff' or "fictional position" or whatever you want to call it.

And 5e is basically demanding a DM who wants those to be balanced weigh all the systems granted specifics and resource spending against the carteblanche probabilities that is the attribute check system, all basically on the fly.

Yes. That's prettymuch being a DM, almost regardless of edition, but particularly in editions like 1e & 5e were Empowerment is emphasized. The payoff for taking up that challenge is not insignificant, either.

 

[Garthanos]

I don't disagree with any of this. Session zero sets an expected level of capability, and there can easily be variance between tables. That's because the DM is empowered to set those levels. That was intentional.

There is no baseline.... I cannot even detect what would make it balanced without doing pretty extreme analysis. Even if I wanted skills to be less able than all those other things I couldnt not really with reliability.

 

[Charlaquin]

Guaranteed to be imbalanced not just inconsistent with between DM some will very much trying to consider the things I mentioned and others like me wishing the game gave me some actual tools that werent just advanced system wide sub-system analysis on my part.

But how important is that level of balance really? Is it that big of a deal that, say, a character can accomplish with a successful skill check something that could also be accomplished with a limited-resource ability?

I used to worry about that kind of thing a lot. Like if I allowed someone to do something that they didn’t have an ability that specifically allowed them to do, I would be invalidating some other character’s ability that did specifically allow that thing. It was downright paralyzing, and it’s why I never much enjoyed DMing 4e.

5e showed me that I was worrying too much. Just let the player describe what they want to do, evaluate if it’s possible and how hard it might be in current circumstances, and call for a check if necessary. It’s quick, it’s easy, and none of my players have ever protested that it wasn’t fair another player accomplished something with a check that they had a spell for. Not even once.

 

[Garthanos]

Players can expect the choice to use a formal resource to be meaningful, and, perhaps balanced against alternate uses of the same formal resource

Action cost is a formal resource (time in game spent) .
There were everyman abilities in 4e the aid action that were very rarely used because they had too high of action cost it was basically a design error.
Attribute values are an opportunity/design cost and the use of one will generally involve an opportunity cost if it takes an action.
5e is worse than that it does not let me balance those action choices in any meaningful way not really.

 

[Stalker0]

I am fine with 5e being more vague, and not providing a set list of skill DCs for everything.

That said, the two things I would have liked to see more is:

1) Some more high level differentiation. Its completely possible for level 5 characters to hit DC 30 checks (aka the "top tier" skill checks). Beyond that, it becomes a little more frequent, but ultimately 20th level characters aren't doing anything "more epic" just "epic more often".

2) Some more examples of DC 35 and 40 checks. My level 10 characters hit these numbers a lot (guidance + bardic inspiration gives you a BIG boost). So I would like to see some examples of what is being the DC 30.

 

[Ashrym]

Umm I am making 3 attacks now my level matters massively even if each is only at 15 percentiles better vs I am making one skill check still and get 15 percentiles no level really really does not matter in a significant way to skill use virtually not at all in comparison to other abilities. I am casting a spell I get higher powered spell slots. The skills are not getting enough better to be called higher powered. The small advancement really does not represent it well. (you are cramming improvement into a really small 1 dimensional blocks where as the attacks and spells are at least two or even three dimensional (with auxiliary effects such as superiority dice added). I grant if you assume expertise the one dimension is now twice as long. Why are we

Spells are consistent among tables fighting is as always in D&D consistent among tables apparently attribute checks are not important enough to a game of D&D to to be consistent among tables.

Magic needs to be given scope and dimension. Mundane actions can generally be described based on pop culture and real world influences.

Multiple attacks are a class ability granted at higher levels but they are specific to classes. That's like comparing reliable talent or peerless skill, and also a class ability.

Not all classes gain an attack option like that. Not all classes gain spell options like that. It's a bit disingenuous to think all classes would gain a skill benefit.

This also gets back to the scale. That +10 bonus is what it takes to be good at a skill in 5e. How the DM applies it is up to the DM and that's the empowerment model chosen. How the player plays the character is based on what that player thinks the character might be capable of. What that character does do is open-ended and tends to be campaign specific.

I do not think attribute checks really were actually given a base line if they were then where? - ie in 4e I could well say that a skill power lets you do something a skill can do without a check if you want to improvise an encounter one have at it and it will likely involve a fairly normal difficulty skill check if you are after one that is probably a daily it will be a more difficult check. Assuming you are doing something like an existing skill power. And there are a few already defined abilities to provide a base line in the skill section. I can let someone improvise a ritual even using pretty basic cost guidelines in 4e.

I don't need a skill power to allow a player to do something any more than I do a skill feat as a DM. The scope of ability checks depends on the campaign and I can increase or decrease the scope as easily as changing the DC of the checks, making more actions auto-succeed, and making less actions impossible.

The point is to keep that in the hands of the DM and not the rulebook because it's meant to be handled differently based on different styles of campaigns.

 

[Garthanos]

But important is that level of balance really? Is it that big of a deal that, say, a character can accomplish with a successful skill check something that could also be accomplished with a limited-resource ability?

Based on the question I have asked on this forum it even matters to many of those somehow championing how 5e does it. They just think they are going to figure it out on the fly... and the end effect is a huge just say no masked by ridiculous difficulties.

t’s quick, it’s easy, and none of my players have ever protested that it wasn’t fair another player accomplished something with a check that they had a spell for. Not even once.

Great for you wonderful anecdote and not useful as a DM I would feel guilty over invalidating opportunity and design choices of the one player and why in hell is there even a resource cost if its easy to accomplish with a strength check? Maybe I should make it harder....

Because design choice and resource expenditure is supposed to mean something is why I want things balanced.

 

[Garthanos]

Magic needs to be given scope and dimension. Mundane actions can generally be described based on pop culture and real world influences.

Right like the real world has a 16th level character in it who fights demi gods. I am not buying it.