Why PCs should be competent, or "I got a lot of past in my past"

[S'mon]

expertise and reliable talent mechanics should be far more present in the game, especially for martials, they need them to undercut the swingyness of the skill system's d20s and so actually be reliably competent in their areas of expertise.

I like to have plenty of low DC skill checks so the guy with +9 Athletics can feel competent when he auto passes all the DC 10s. I think with 5e it's important to avoid much scaling of DCs by party level. Keep most DCs in the 10-15-20 range at all PC levels. If there is a DC 30 it should be for something truly 'nearly impossible'. Then the level 20-Epic Barbarian with STR 30 (minimum Athletics roll 30) can feel good about auto succeeding at breaking the Black Gate of Mordor.

Rather than Reliable Talent, I use the rule/implied rule that repeated attempts use the character's Passive score. So eg if the DC is 18 the PC with a +9 will succeed eventually, maybe taking a minute. The PC with a +7 either succeeds first time or can't do it.

 

[pemerton]

I’d be interested in knowing from those who want competent characters how you view (in general) negative outcomes in combat or skill checks. How do you react if your character is injured or incapacitated? When they don’t succeed in climbing the cliff?

In the past several years all my playing (not GMing) has been in Burning Wheel. So I've failed a lot of rolls!

That doesn't mean my characters are incompetent. They just don't always get what they want!

 

[Wolfpack48]

expertise and reliable talent mechanics should be far more present in the game, especially for martials, they need them to undercut the swingyness of the skill system's d20s and so actually be reliably competent in their areas of expertise.

I dont think special mechanics are necessary. At certain skill levels simply determine that a roll isn’t needed for normal and easy difficulty tests.

You’d always need to roll for combat of course given its dynamic nature

 

[CreamCloud0]

I dont think special mechanics are necessary. At certain skill levels simply determine that a roll isn’t needed for normal and easy difficulty tests.

You’d always need to roll for combat of course based given its dynamic nature

then i assume there's also going to be a comprehensive section in the DMG added that outlines what sort of tasks are normal and easy difficulty for each skill? because that's something that i think would be subject to alot of GM fiat otherwise.

but also, i know you're saying that in player interests but bypassing the roll entirely can be antithetical to the experience of being a master at a certain tasks, consider ranger's favoured terrain/the outlander background, people picked them because they wanted to be wilderness experts but the auto-success they provided was actually a feelsbad result as it denied them interacting with the systems they wanted to be good at.

giving combinations of expertise and reliable talent however give players consistency in their level of skill at certain tasks that results in the same success over simple tasks without removing their player's interaction with the mechanics.

 

[GMMichael]

I dont think special mechanics are necessary. At certain skill levels simply determine that a roll isn’t needed for normal and easy difficulty tests.

Give some DMs a hammer (ability check rules), and everything looks like a nail (the need to ask for checks).

 

[Wolfpack48]

then i assume there's also going to be a comprehensive section in the DMG added that outlines what sort of tasks are normal and easy difficulty for each skill? because that's something that i think would be subject to alot of GM fiat otherwise.

but also, i know you're saying that in player interests but bypassing the roll entirely can be antithetical to the experience of being a master at a certain tasks, consider ranger's favoured terrain/the outlander background, people picked them because they wanted to be wilderness experts but the auto-success they provided was actually a feelsbad result as it denied them interacting with the systems they wanted to be good at.

giving combinations of expertise and reliable talent however give players consistency in their level of skill at certain tasks that results in the same success over simple tasks without removing their player's interaction with the mechanics.

The referee/scenario writer assigns the difficulty to tests in the adventure. “The chest has a Hard difficulty lock.” Tests that aren’t going to make or break the scenario can be decided in the moment whether they are necessary. This is where referee has to use their skilled judgment and do the most interesting (and fun for the players) thing.

There will always be rolling just perhaps not for inconsequential stuff and perhaps only for extremely skilled characters.

 

[Wolfpack48]

Give some DMs a hammer (ability check rules), and everything looks like a nail (the need to ask for checks).

They’d only be needed at strategic/dramatic points. I’ve never found skill checks to be particularly onerous or excessive in skill based systems such as BRP.

 

[MNblockhead]

I think D&D calls for too many checks. A person can jump a certain distance on a 10, but it's highly unrealistic and highly unsatisfactory for someone to ever roll a 9 or 11. (For example.) As a multiply-disabled, uneducated and untrained noncombatant, I expect that characters meant to represent action heroes should be able to do more in terms of normal human athleticism and "common sense" lore knowledge than I can.

It's not a matter of how often they succeed or fail at extraordinary tasks. It's a matter of ordinary tasks that are too difficult or even unattemptable to the majority of characters.

Does it? Or do most DMs call for more checks than needed? Most of the time I don't see why one would be rolling for "ordinary" tasks in 5e. But, what is "ordinary" is pretty subjective. I'm glad that 5e left a lot of room for DM judgement on when a roll is required. I probably call for rolls more often than is really needed. Have the dice decide things and seeing where it takes the story is a big part of the fun for me. But I still frequently don't call for rolls where I see a lot of DMs call for it.

Is your complaint based on you being a DM or a player? If the former, it is in your power not to call for rolls for what you consider an "ordinary" task for which there should be a low chance of failure for competent PCs. If you are a player, this seems more like a difference in expectations between you and your DM.

 

[MNblockhead]

And I'm not sure where the Breakfast Club comes in, as that movie takes place over a single day and doesn't really have any adventuring-type challenges for the characters – or are you talking about some other Breakfast Club than the John Hughes movie?

I assumed he was talking about his local fight club for pugilists who like to share chicken and waffles before the big rumble.~

 

[Corinnguard]

Have the dice decide things and seeing where it takes the story is a big part of the fun for me.

The Dice of Fickle Fortune.