Difference between check and save?

[LVOD]

This seems like a dumb question, but what are the differences between checks and saves? Is it just that one is tied to skills and the other to proficiency?

[DivisibleByZero]

This seems like a dumb question, but what are the differences between checks and saves? Is it just that one is tied to skills and the other to proficiency?

There are three different types of d20 rolls: Attack Rolls, Ability Checks, and Saving Throws.
The reason they are differentiated is because certain effects only apply to one of them.

[Ninja_Prawn]

There are three different types of d20 rolls: Attack Rolls, Ability Checks, and Saving Throws.
The reason they are differentiated is because certain effects only apply to one of them.

That's about the size of it.

Typically you call for a check when someone is trying to impose their will on the world, and a save when the world is getting its own back (that is to say, saves are usually imposed by someone or something else: I cast a spell at you, you make a save to avoid it). Those aren't hard and fast rules, of course, but it's a good starting point if you're writing a new ability or effect.

[Roderick_BR]

To simplify, if you want to do something, it's a check. If you are reacting to someone doing something, it's a save. There are specific situations like spells that requires skill checks instead of saves, but those exceptions will be explained in the description of the skill/spell/power/whatever.

[visitor]

This seems like a dumb question, but what are the differences between checks and saves? Is it just that one is tied to skills and the other to proficiency?

It is a bit confusing, the bits are somewhat spread out in the PHB. But see PHB p. 7 overview.

There are 3 main rolls in the game: attack rolls, saving throws, and ability checks.

All are modified by your ability score modifier(maybe a more clear term would have been "attribute" score modifier): STR, DEX, CON, INT, WIS or CHA.


You add proficiency to these rolls based on different criteria:

-Attack rolls add proficiency if you have weapon proficiency or as included in the "spell attack modifier". So your typical attacks that your class would be doing will add your proficiency bonus.

-Saving Throws add proficiency based on your class. See PHB p.45. Each class has two ability scores (attributes) that they add their proficiency bonus to saves.

-Ability checks will add the proficiency bonus if you have the appropriate skill. You see calls for ability checks written out as Wisdom (perception); you always add your attribute modifier + proficiency if you have the perception skill.


For me, the last two got confusing as I was too generous with my players re-rolls for their attribute scores. It makes the proficiency bonus seem not that significant or contributing as much as just their base ability score. Anyway I think I got this straight.




When you want to do something, it's usually an ability check (skill) that's called for. Like swimming, jumping, remembering, whatever.

Usually to protect yourself from a bad outcome or mitigate damage from a source it's a save or ability check depending on what is specified. Like Fireball (save vs DEX) or detect the trapped chest (do a wisdom(perception) check).

[Pex]

To simplify, if you want to do something, it's a check. If you are reacting to someone doing something, it's a save. There are specific situations like spells that requires skill checks instead of saves, but those exceptions will be explained in the description of the skill/spell/power/whatever.

A good rule of thumb but there could be exceptions. If you're walking along a ledge and the ground gives way, the DM might ask for an Athletics or Acrobatics check, maybe even whichever is best for the character, as opposed to a Dexterity saving throw to be able to grab onto a rock, the ledge, or another party member when you're on the ground that did not give way.

[FinnS]

A pretty common question actually.

Proficiency in a saving throw is just for saving throws.
It doesn't confer you getting your prof bonus on raw Ability checks. Best example being Initiative which is a raw DEX check.
Certain abilities like the Bard's Jack of all Trades (half of your Prof bonus rounded down on raw checks -not saving throws- and skills that don't already use your Prof bonus) or the Champion's Remarkable Athlete (half of your Prof bonus rounded on raw checks -not saving throws- and skills involving STR, DEX and CON that don't already use your Prof bonus) do grant their bonus on a Raw check like Initiative or when trying to break down a door. Yes, even that Bard with 10 STR gets their JoaT's bonus when trying to break down a door lol
It's very specific.
As someone already mentioned Barbarian Rage which specifically says they get Advantage on STR saves AND checks while raging.
Where as the level 6 Aspect of the Bear Totem ability only confers Advantage on STR checks to push, pull, lift or break.

To be honest, there's very few things that can't be covered by an existing skill (skills were made broad in 5e for a reason) and it shouldn't be a big deal unless your DM is a prick.
I can't think of too many times I have called for a Raw stat check and most of the time it usually involves STR for breaking down a door, holding something open, lifting something or snapping a lock. And even then I always allow another player that is able to help to do so, conferring Advantage on the check.

[Ninja_Prawn]

most of the time it usually involves STR

Or CON. Most CON checks are raw. I occasionally use raw INT checks for memory as well, if it's something random that a character might connect or might not. Like "maybe you've seen this guy's face before somewhere? Make an Intelligence check to see if you remember."

[FinnS]

Or CON. Most CON checks are raw. I occasionally use raw INT checks for memory as well, if it's something random that a character might connect or might not. Like "maybe you've seen this guy's face before somewhere? Make an Intelligence check to see if you remember."

Yep, sounds about right.

[Vogonjeltz]

To simplify, if you want to do something, it's a check. If you are reacting to someone doing something, it's a save. There are specific situations like spells that requires skill checks instead of saves, but those exceptions will be explained in the description of the skill/spell/power/whatever.

Er, not exactly.

Saves are limited to "an attempt to resist a spell, a trap, a poison, a disease, or a similar threat." (PHB 179)

whereas an ability check "tests a character's or monster's innate talent and training in an effort to overcome a challenge." (PHB 174)

Standard practice for designing these is that Ability checks either use DCs or opposed ability checks; and if someone is using something other than an ability check to harm you and it doesn't involve an attack roll, you would usually get a saving throw to avoid that harm in some fashion (either negating it entirely, or in some cases taking reduced harm).

For the OP (LVOD): Another distinction, beyond those mentioned, is that Ability checks might be used with a variety of different skill proficiencies, or different abilities might be substituted for an ability check, depending on what the character is doing and how they are trying to go about it.

Saving throws on the other hand are not mutable in this way.

[Tanarii]

To be honest, there's very few things that can't be covered by an existing skill (skills were made broad in 5e for a reason) and it shouldn't be a big deal unless your DM is a prick.
A DM absolutely is not being a prick to avoid having every check covered by a skill. He's just playing 5e as it is designed. Both the PHB and the DMg strongly encourage the DM to make raw ability checks. In fact, that's exactly why they everything is an ability checks, and not skill checks. You're stuck in a 3e mindset.

[Pex]

A DM absolutely is not being a prick to avoid having every check covered by a skill. He's just playing 5e as it is designed. Both the PHB and the DMg strongly encourage the DM to make raw ability checks. In fact, that's exactly why they everything is an ability checks, and not skill checks. You're stuck in a 3e mindset.

Point, but I reserve the right to call the DM a donkey cavity if every raw ability check is effective DC you roll high you succeed otherwise you fail, i.e. every DC is 15 or 20. I want to see those DC 10s and 5s. I want a fair chance of succeeding even when my raw modifier is +1 or 0, and even a -1 should not mean almost always fail. I accept the particular event in question might justify a DC 15 or 20 for its own sake. If the DM is allowing autosuccess in other situations frequently enough then my objection is moot; he's not a donkey cavity.

In any case, it has been my experience that when a DM does call for a raw ability check he'll allow the character to add in proficiency anyway. It could be just to give the player a fair chance as possible. It could be in the DM's head he's allowing PC experience to be added to the base ability score via the proficiency.

[Tanarii]

Point, but I reserve the right to call the DM a donkey cavity if every raw ability check is effective DC you roll high you succeed otherwise you fail, i.e. every DC is 15 or 20. I want to see those DC 10s and 5s. I want a fair chance of succeeding even when my raw modifier is +1 or 0, and even a -1 should not mean almost always fail. I accept the particular event in question might justify a DC 15 or 20 for its own sake. If the DM is allowing autosuccess in other situations frequently enough then my objection is moot; he's not a donkey cavity.Yeah, it's definitely incumbent on a DM to set DCs appropriately for how hard the task is as if someone won't have proficiency. If you're going to shoehorn every ability check into a type of proficiency, then you can raise the DCs a little. But not too much. Non proficient characters are supposed to have a shot at passing checks. Thats an assumption of the system.

[FinnS]

A DM absolutely is not being a prick to avoid having every check covered by a skill. He's just playing 5e as it is designed. Both the PHB and the DMg strongly encourage the DM to make raw ability checks. In fact, that's exactly why they everything is an ability checks, and not skill checks. You're stuck in a 3e mindset.

Naw, I simply decide if the task in question involves a degree of skill or not.
Holding your breath does not involve much skill.
Lifting something does not involve much skill.


I simply don't agree with the PHB when it suggests that picking a lock or removing a trap is a raw DEX check. In my book those definitely involve skill. Prof in Sleight of Hand means that character has extra quick and nimble fingers so it applies.

Another good example that happened recently was that a character was tied up. Normally escaping bonds is a raw DEX or STR check but in this case the player was caught in a snare trap hanging upside down 25' in the air by his ankles. I let him use his Acrobatics because it involved more than just simply escaping his bonds.

You say I'm in a 3E mindset. I completely disagree, 3E was rigid and restrictive. It had an individual skill for almost everything. If you didn't have the skill you couldn't apply it and you went from having like a +15 or much, much higher to just a +5.
5E is about being less restrictive and more free flowing which is exactly what I'm being when I let players reasonably stretch out what their skills can apply to.
Hell in 5E, some skills can overlap to do the same thing. They even give an example in the PHB of the Orc using STR instead of CHAR for an intimidation check.
Another example might be if you're gambling (cards or dice) and you want to cheat. Sleight of Hand seems the obvious choice but Deception could be used instead for the same result.

Let the Rogue that took Expertise in Acrobatics try all kinds of things with it. It will only make the game more fun, not less.

[Desamir]

I simply don't agree with the PHB when it suggests that picking a lock or removing a trap is a raw DEX check. In my book those definitely involve skill. Prof in Sleight of Hand means that character has extra quick and nimble fingers so it applies.

The PHB recommends using Thieves' Tools proficiency for that. Sleight of Hand is usually used for pickpocketing, concealing items, or legerdemain.

[FinnS]

The PHB recommends using Thieves' Tools proficiency for that. Sleight of Hand is usually used for pickpocketing, concealing items, or legerdemain.

Yeah but I don't run it that way. Not a fan of Tool profiencies and neither are my players.
After a long discussion, we made a house rule that specific tools give advantage.

It all came about when the party was locked up without any equipment. The Bard with prof in sleight of hand got a nail to pick the lock on the door. It wasn't a proper pick but the player made a reasonable argument to use his SoH so I allowed it which led to further discussing tools.

At the end of the day as long as the DM and players are in agreement over what rules you have. Nothing else matters.

[Vogonjeltz]

The PHB recommends using Thieves' Tools proficiency for that. Sleight of Hand is usually used for pickpocketing, concealing items, or legerdemain.

More specifically you can't pick a lock without thieves tools and proficiency. (DMG 103)

[Spookykid]

I hate raw ability checks, most of the time a proficiency bonus should be added. Breaking down a door using a strength only? Why cant the guy who has learned how to leverage his weight and balance be able to add his proficiency bonus? If searching a library for a bit of information, why cant the person that trained and studies in libraries get to add proficiency bonus?

[BRC]

I hate raw ability checks, most of the time a proficiency bonus should be added. Breaking down a door using a strength only? Why cant the guy who has learned how to leverage his weight and balance be able to add his proficiency bonus? If searching a library for a bit of information, why cant the person that trained and studies in libraries get to add proficiency bonus?

Mostly because "Breaking down doors" and "Searching a library" are not represented by 5e's rather limited skill system.

Personally, I use Athletics to cover most instances of raw physical ability (Breaking down a door, lifting a heavy thing, Jumping across a gap, climbing a wall), with acrobatics covering things that are more about coordination (Balancing, rolling under a gap, weaving between combatants or obstacles, aiming a jump to reach a specific spot, ect).

With "Searching through a library", I would apply the most relevant knowledge skill, based on the information being sought.

Raw skill checks are pretty rare in my book. Off the top of my head I can't think of any scenarios that wouldn't have some applicable proficiency.

I guess holding one's breath could be a Raw constitution check? Or solving a puzzle could be a raw intelligence check?

[Tanarii]

Mostly because "Breaking down doors" and "Searching a library" are not represented by 5e's rather limited skill system. Yeah. 5e's skill system seems to assume something like:
A) PCs are by profession and trade adventurers first, and as such all have basic check ability in doing any necessary adventure-y tasks using raw ability checks.
B) Skills are adventure-y things adventurers they can place special focus on and get a bonus to. Thus Proficiency just means a focus in a task. Ie something you're better at than a base ability check. Not necessarily training or practice, although it could include that.
C) Raw ability scores can include training & practice per the PHB, so effectively raw ability score is both natural talent AND possibly training in all related skills, as well as possibly in all other areas (ie checks that cannot apply a skill proficiency bonus).
D) High raw ability scores are intentionally set to be about as good as being proficient and not having a high natural ability score. You can have a 12 and be as good as 8+proficiency at level 1, 14 = 8+prof at level 5, and 16 = 8+prof at level 9. In other words, there's no difference between a +3 bonus from raw ability score and a +3 bonus from proficiency. Either can be explained as natural talent, training, divine blessing, whatever.

That's some IMO interpretation on my part. But it shows why raw ability checks are working as intended.


Raw skill checks are pretty rare in my book. Off the top of my head I can't think of any scenarios that wouldn't have some applicable proficiency.
Examples directly from the PHB itself that don't get skill prof bonus, although some of these would get Tool proficiency bonus:

Strength:
• Force open a stuck, locked, or barred door
• Break free of bonds
• Push through a tunnel that is too small
• Hang on to a wagon while being dragged behind it
• Tip over a statue
• Keep a boulder from rolling

Dexterity:
• Control a heavily laden cart on a steep descent
• Steer a chariot around a tight turn
• Pick a lock
• Disable a trap
• Securely tie up a prisoner
• Wriggle free of bonds
• Play a stringed instrument
• Craft a small or detailed object

Constitution:
• Hold your breath
• March or labor for hours without rest
• Go without sleep
• Survive without food or water
• Quaff an entire stein of ale in one go

Intelligence:
• Communicate with a creature without using words
• Estimate the value of a precious item
• Pull together a disguise to pass as a city guard
• Forge a document
• Recall lore about a craft or trade
• Win a game of skill

Wisdom:
• Get a gut feeling about what course of action to follow
• Discern whether a seemingly dead or living creature is undead

Charisma:
• Find the best person to talk to for news, rumors, and gossip
• Blend into a crowd to get the sense of key topics of conversation

Edit: trying to make myself clear in first section, plus added spoiler to cut down length of second.

[Spookykid]

The list from the phb is kinda misleading, if you have the proper tools you get your proficiency bonus.

[Tanarii]

The list from the phb is kinda misleading, if you have the proper tools you get your proficiency bonus.For some of them, yes, if you have the proper tools and proficiency in that tool, you get your proficiency bonus. For others you don't. edit: mostly Dex and Int checks, which is appropriate for the kinds of things you'd be doing with a Tool IMO.

[Pex]

I hate raw ability checks, most of the time a proficiency bonus should be added. Breaking down a door using a strength only? Why cant the guy who has learned how to leverage his weight and balance be able to add his proficiency bonus? If searching a library for a bit of information, why cant the person that trained and studies in libraries get to add proficiency bonus?

Because 5E doesn't believe in a universal skill system. Instead, their philosophy is the ability of your character to do something is dependent on who is the DM that day, but I digress rant. :smalltongue:

[Vogonjeltz]

Because 5E doesn't believe in a universal skill system. Instead, their philosophy is the ability of your character to do something is dependent on who is the DM that day, but I digress rant. :smalltongue:

Reverse that, the assumption is you can do something unless there's a chance of failure.

[Pex]

Reverse that, the assumption is you can do something unless there's a chance of failure.

But different DMs will have different opinions on when there is a chance of failure and how much of that chance there should be. Therefore, your ability to do something depends on who is the DM that day.

And we digress.

[FinnS]

But different DMs will have different opinions on when there is a chance of failure and how much of that chance there should be. Therefore, your ability to do something depends on who is the DM that day.



Are you new to D&D?
It's ALWAYS been this way.
I've been playing D&D almost 35 years now, had dozens of DM's, been a DM myself for most of it and I have yet to see 2 DM's rule the same way on everything.

When someone asks me what I think makes a good DM, this is what I tell them...fairness and consistency are two of the most important qualities. What makes someone the best DM though is the ability to remember that's it's not you vs them.

[Pex]

Are you new to D&D?
It's ALWAYS been this way.
I've been playing D&D almost 35 years now, had dozens of DM's, been a DM myself for most of it and I have yet to see 2 DM's rule the same way on everything.

When someone asks me what I think makes a good DM, this is what I tell them...fairness and consistency are two of the most important qualities. What makes someone the best DM though is the ability to remember that's it's not you vs them.

No, it wasn't always. In 3E/Pathfinder you have defined DCs for tasks or formulas to set DCs for tasks or opposed rolls. Your chance ability to succeed is dependent on your choice as to where to place your skill points. People quibble on the implementation (not enough skill points, social skills should have been opposed rolls, etc.), but who was DM didn't matter. You knew what your character could do or gauge the probability.

Naturally a DM can arbitrarily change things. In 3E he could say all DCs for everything are 30. In 5E he could say all DCs for everything are 20. However, that's being obtuse.

[DivisibleByZero]

Naturally a DM can arbitrarily change things. In 3E he could say all DCs for everything are 30. In 5E he could say all DCs for everything are 20. However, that's being obtuse.

I think you should look up the definition of the word obtuse, because what you described is not it.
I'd even go so far as to declare this a pot/kettle scenario.

[Saeviomage]

The main problem with 5e's skill system is that it describes a DC 10 as 'easy'.

To me, if I'm good at something and I'm trained to do it, an easy task is something that I'm not going to fail to do. But in 5e, it's something that I fail at ~20% of the time.

And that leads to DMs making the DC for everything 15, because the skill guidance is so poor, and this thing isn't easy, right? So it must be 15.

And worse, it leads to DMs making the DC for things that don't have proficiencies available 15.

Even worse still, DMs will basically categorize everyday mundane tasks as 'easy', which leads to rolling the dice to find your way across town against a DC of 10.

Finally there isn't any information or thought about requiring multiple rolls to succeed at something. So a lot of DMs will require you to roll for each component of a task. All of a sudden you're looking at a charisma check to ask someone for directions, then an int check to walk to the landmark, then a con check to not be too exhausted to make it, and now a walk across town has a 75% chance to fail.

And it's not really the DM's fault. The books are pretty poor when it comes to explaining how you should and shouldn't handle non-combat scenarios, and it's clear that the people writing them didn't think of the maths at all.

[Knaight]

No, it wasn't always. In 3E/Pathfinder you have defined DCs for tasks or formulas to set DCs for tasks or opposed rolls. Your chance ability to succeed is dependent on your choice as to where to place your skill points. People quibble on the implementation (not enough skill points, social skills should have been opposed rolls, etc.), but who was DM didn't matter. You knew what your character could do or gauge the probability.

Sure, so then the DM just changes what tasks appear where.

[Pex]

I think you should look up the definition of the word obtuse, because what you described is not it.
I'd even go so far as to declare this a pot/kettle scenario.

And that's being pedantic.

[ad_hoc]

And it's not really the DM's fault. The books are pretty poor when it comes to explaining how you should and shouldn't handle non-combat scenarios, and it's clear that the people writing them didn't think of the maths at all.

The game works just fine. They knew what they were doing. I would suggest actually reading the 5e skill system. It is a different system than the one in 3.x.

The thing is, you are only making a check in the first place if it is interesting, the outcome is unknown, and there is a consequence for failure. Otherwise there is no check.

[Desamir]

The main problem with 5e's skill system is that it describes a DC 10 as 'easy'.

To me, if I'm good at something and I'm trained to do it, an easy task is something that I'm not going to fail to do. But in 5e, it's something that I fail at ~20% of the time.

And that leads to DMs making the DC for everything 15, because the skill guidance is so poor, and this thing isn't easy, right? So it must be 15.

And worse, it leads to DMs making the DC for things that don't have proficiencies available 15.

Even worse still, DMs will basically categorize everyday mundane tasks as 'easy', which leads to rolling the dice to find your way across town against a DC of 10.

Finally there isn't any information or thought about requiring multiple rolls to succeed at something. So a lot of DMs will require you to roll for each component of a task. All of a sudden you're looking at a charisma check to ask someone for directions, then an int check to walk to the landmark, then a con check to not be too exhausted to make it, and now a walk across town has a 75% chance to fail.

And it's not really the DM's fault. The books are pretty poor when it comes to explaining how you should and shouldn't handle non-combat scenarios, and it's clear that the people writing them didn't think of the maths at all.

The DMG is actually pretty darn specific about DCs. I think you could fault the DM for not reading it.


The numbers associated with these categories of difficulty are meant to be easy to keep in your head, so that you don't have to refer to this book every time you decide on a DC. Here are some tips for using DC categories at the gaming table.

If you've decided that an ability check is called for, then most likely the task at hand isn't a very easy one. Most people can accomplish a DC 5 task with little chance of failure. Unless circumstances are unusual, let characters succeed at such a task without making a check.

Then ask yourself, "Is this task's difficulty easy, moderate, or hard?" If the only DCs you ever use are 10, 15, and 20, your game will run just fine. Keep in mind that a character with a 10 in the associated ability and no proficiency will succeed at an easy task around 50 percent of the time. A moderate task requires a higher score or proficiency for success, whereas a hard task typically requires both. A big dose of luck with the d20 also doesn't hurt.

[DivisibleByZero]

And that's being pedantic.

It's not being pedantic at all, just like it wasn't obtuse a moment ago.
I think someone needs to buy a dictionary. Oh, hey! You're on the internet! Look words up before you try to use them to insult someone.

He wasn't being obtuse. One could argue that you were. And by pointing that out, I wasn't being pedantic.
You were insulting and essentially name calling (and doing it poorly and incorrectly I might add) and I called you on it.
Deal with it.

[Pex]

It's not being pedantic at all, just like it wasn't obtuse a moment ago.
I think someone needs to buy a dictionary. Oh, hey! You're on the internet! Look words up before you try to use them to insult someone.

He wasn't being obtuse. One could argue that you were. And by pointing that out, I wasn't being pedantic.
You were insulting and essentially name calling (and doing it poorly and incorrectly I might add) and I called you on it.
Deal with it.

What the heck are you talking about? I wasn't calling anyone names nor doing any insulting. You're upset because I used the word "obtuse". I didn't call anyone "obtuse". I called the hypothetical situation of a DM arbitrarily changing the DCs that are formally defined in 3E "obtuse". In fact, it was the person who responded who did the insulting by sarcastically doubting my experience in playing D&D, but I decided to ignore that and just counter-argued with an example of how there was a time in D&D when your character's ability to do something wasn't dependent on who is the DM that day.

Deal with it.

[FinnS]

What the heck are you talking about? I wasn't calling anyone names nor doing any insulting. You're upset because I used the word "obtuse". I didn't call anyone "obtuse". I called the hypothetical situation of a DM arbitrarily changing the DCs that are formally defined in 3E "obtuse". In fact, it was the person who responded who did the insulting by sarcastically doubting my experience in playing D&D, but I decided to ignore that and just counter-argued with an example of how there was a time in D&D when your character's ability to do something wasn't dependent on who is the DM that day.

Deal with it.

I wasn't trying to insult you, I was simply pointing that no matter what the PHB, the DMG or any other source that sets a DC, the DM ALWAYS reserves the right, in EVERY edition, even 3rd to change/adjust them.

Besides, we weren't even talking about DC's, we were talking about raw vs skill checks. Specifically how one DM might call for skill check while another calls for a raw ability check on the same thing.

Quite obviously, the whole reason to call for more raw ability checks in 5E is so the DM can maintain reasonable DC's.
Even at level 20 with 20 in a stat, an un-adjusted raw ability check only has a 60% chance to succeed.
Compared to a level 20 Rogue with a 20 DEX and expertise in SoH is rolling a minimum of 27 to succeed making a DC 15 check useless.

[Tanarii]

Besides, we weren't even talking about DC's, we were talking about raw vs skill checks. Specifically how one DM might call for skill check while another calls for a raw ability check on the same thing.5e's 'Arbitrary' or 'DM-fiat' DCs, even if they're within a typical range of 10-20, is a pet peeve of Pex's. Which is why he said "and we digress". He's fully aware it's a digression.

(Pex, I was actually impressed you managed not to bring it up in your first response in this thread. :smallbiggrin:)


Quite obviously, the whole reason to call for more raw ability checks in 5E is so the DM can maintain reasonable DC's.
Even at level 20 with 20 in a stat, an un-adjusted raw ability check only has a 60% chance to succeed.
Compared to a level 20 Rogue with a 20 DEX and expertise in SoH is rolling a minimum of 27 to succeed making a DC 15 check useless.
Another way to look at it is that a DM should base DCs off of how likely they think an untrained and not particularly talented (ie +0 totaly bonus) character is to succeed. That's the basis the DMG guidelines use. Per the handy quote provided by Desamir 4 posts up (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21757573&postcount=33).

[Pex]

(Pex, I was actually impressed you managed not to bring it up in your first response in this thread. :smallbiggrin:)




Teehee
:smallyuk:

Also, 2E had non-weapon proficiencies as another example of D&D history allowing players to know their chance of success without depending on who was the DM that day. It had its faults, of course. Some DMs took the concept to mean that if you didn't have proficiency in something you couldn't do it at all. For example, in a 2E game I played a few months ago for nostalgia sake I wasn't allowed to even attempt to lasso a bad guy because I wasn't proficient in Use Rope. If it was 3E I could attempt an attack roll at -4. In 5E it would probably be at disadvantage.

[Vogonjeltz]

But different DMs will have different opinions on when there is a chance of failure and how much of that chance there should be. Therefore, your ability to do something depends on who is the DM that day.

And we digress.

You can't cross the same river twice, so there's no point fretting about what another DM might have done. They aren't running the adventure you're playing, the one in front of you is. More-so, if this is a module, the DCs are built-in already, so they will be exactly identical in that scenario.

Having a DM with poor judgment is not an indictment of the system, just the DM.

[Tanarii]

In 5E it would probably be at disadvantage.
In 5e it'd either be an attack roll without profiency or an straight ability check. That'd work out to either a Dex check vs AC or a Dex check vs a DC or opposed ability score.

So yeah, pretty DM dependent.

Edit: although I'd be surprised if a DM in any system made it anything other than an attack roll, given it was vs a creature.

[Pex]

You can't cross the same river twice, so there's no point fretting about what another DM might have done. They aren't running the adventure you're playing, the one in front of you is. More-so, if this is a module, the DCs are built-in already, so they will be exactly identical in that scenario.

Having a DM with poor judgment is not an indictment of the system, just the DM.

If one DM makes something a DC 10, another DC 15, and a third DM has it be autosuccess, who's to say which DM is using poor judgment? If I choose to play in more than one game but my ability to do the same task is different for each one, the fault is entirely on the system for not defining how that task should be accomplished.

[FinnS]

If one DM makes something a DC 10, another DC 15, and a third DM has it be autosuccess, who's to say which DM is using poor judgment? If I choose to play in more than one game but my ability to do the same task is different for each one, the fault is entirely on the system for not defining how that task should be accomplished.

Please name a situation when 3 different DM's running the exact same set Mod gave you 3 different DC's for doing the exact same thing with the exact same level of proficiency on all 3 characters?

Cause it sure sounds more and more that you're getting upset with a situation that could occur on paper but is highly unlikey to actually occur at the table.
Theorycrafting is fun but it's rarely reality. I proved that for years in WoW and D&D is no different.

What is with this need of yours to pigeon hole everything and be so rigid that you need a flat out rule etched in stone for something that may not and probably will not ever happen?

And again, no matter what the DMG or PHB says from any edition, if the DM doesn't like a rule, it won't be used.

[djreynolds]

I have seen dex checks to stay up right on a boat in bad weather, or move out of the way of an avalanche or tumbling boulder.

We rolled dex checks for these, but did not get proficiency on these rolls. It was a low DC

And I'm not sure if cold/hot weather allows proficiency or not as well

I cannot honestly remember if this was just the DMs own fluff or in game.

[rollingForInit]

What is with this need of yours to pigeon hole everything and be so rigid that you need a flat out rule etched in stone for something that may not and probably will not ever happen?

I've played games like that, where you kind of need the 400 page basic rule book, and the 300 pages long extended combat rules book, and the 300 pages long magic rules book, and then if you wanna do necromancy right, the 150 pages long necromancy rules book. And where you have detailed rules for what happens when you aim your sword, and what happens when instead of hitting the demon the gut you roll poorly and chop its ear off? Did you just cause a flesh wound, or did you cut open an artery?

It can be fun and everything, but personally I prefer 5e's simplicity and keeping the obscure scenarios within the DM's purview, with a solid base of rules.

[Pex]

Please name a situation when 3 different DM's running the exact same set Mod gave you 3 different DC's for doing the exact same thing with the exact same level of proficiency on all 3 characters?

Cause it sure sounds more and more that you're getting upset with a situation that could occur on paper but is highly unlikey to actually occur at the table.
Theorycrafting is fun but it's rarely reality. I proved that for years in WoW and D&D is no different.

What is with this need of yours to pigeon hole everything and be so rigid that you need a flat out rule etched in stone for something that may not and probably will not ever happen?

And again, no matter what the DMG or PHB says from any edition, if the DM doesn't like a rule, it won't be used.

I'm well aware Sage Advice has answers to some of these. I'm not playing with Sage Advice as DM. It's not only about Skill DCs.

Whether a Paladin can use Great Weapon Style on smites. Fortunate for me the DM allows it for the game where I'm playing a Paladin. For another game that Paladin player could not.

Whether a spellcaster with an owl familiar can use it to Help on an attack to give a party member advantage. Different DMs allowed it. The first time I played a spellcaster with an owl familiar, just my luck to find the DM who doesn't when I was all excited to finally use the tactic myself.

The ability to identify monster strengths and weaknesses with a Knowledge check. DCs vary for the same monsters among the DMs, and even then the knowledge gained could be detailed or vague.

The ability to break down a wooden door. One DM gave autosuccess. Another DM said just don't roll a 1. A third DM gave the door AC 10.

These are what I can remember at the moment.

[FinnS]

I'm well aware Sage Advice has answers to some of these. I'm not playing with Sage Advice as DM. It's not only about Skill DCs.

For the most part Sage Advice is a good source especially for revealing designer intentions but not all of those rulings make sense for everyone.


Whether a Paladin can use Great Weapon Style on smites. Fortunate for me the DM allows it for the game where I'm playing a Paladin. For another game that Paladin player could not.

I can see that. Personally, I allow it.
Hell I even had one DM taking the "die" wording literally say that you only get to re-roll a single die.


Whether a spellcaster with an owl familiar can use it to Help on an attack to give a party member advantage. Different DMs allowed it. The first time I played a spellcaster with an owl familiar, just my luck to find the DM who doesn't when I was all excited to finally use the tactic myself.

This is one baffles me a bit. It clearly says a Familiar can use any action other than the attack option.
That is an unreasonable DM call in my books.


The ability to identify monster strengths and weaknesses with a Knowledge check. DCs vary for the same monsters among the DMs, and even then the knowledge gained could be detailed or vague.

This one definitely gets pretty murky.
I have creatures fall into one of three categories, Arcana, Religion or Nature.
Then I just use their challenge rating or DC 10 (what ever is higher) to simply identify the creature. If they beat the DC by 10 or more then they have intimate knowledge of said creature.


The ability to break down a wooden door. One DM gave autosuccess. Another DM said just don't roll a 1. A third DM gave the door AC 10.

Not all wooden doors are the same but unless there's some kind of time sensitive issue going on (like you have to break into a room where someone is being attacked and every round it takes you to get in there could cost them their life or one of my favourites, they're trapped in a room while the floor is retracting and they have to break out before they fall) then this really shouldn't be an issue.
Without any time contraints, players can just repeatedly bash at a door with Advantage through the Help option till it's down anyway so what's the point of rolling it out?

But again, regardless of Edition, most final DC's have ALWAYS been at the DM's discretion.
As long as the DM keeps in mind that raw ability checks are always harder to make than actual skill checks and keeps them reasonable and fair, no one should have an issue.

[Tanarii]

This is one baffles me a bit. It clearly says a Familiar can use any action other than the attack option.
That is an unreasonable DM call in my books.Not at all. It's a totally normal ruling by DMs to prevent Familiars from being overpowered.

[Cybren]

Not at all. It's a totally normal ruling by DMs to prevent Familiars from being overpowered.

Especially since one of the preconditions for the help action being capable of doing the action you're helping

[Millstone85]

Especially since one of the preconditions for the help action being capable of doing the action you're helpingOnly if it is an ability check. There are separate rules for helping with an attack roll.

[Cybren]

Only if it is an ability check. There are separate rules for helping with an attack roll.

Sure, but one can easily extrapolate, so the ruling isn't some unfair tyrannical DM call

[Desamir]

Not at all. It's a totally normal ruling by DMs to prevent Familiars from being overpowered.

Rules aside, I don't know if combat helping is a particularly overpowered use of familiars. They die so easily.

[Tanarii]

I probably should have added #trollingstatement or something. My point was it's a hotly disputed ruling, so it's absolutely NOT an unreasonable DM. Many DMs hold that's it's RAW that familiars can't Help, because you have to be able to do something in the first place to help.

My personal opinion is it's RAW they can help because that rule is in the skill section, not the combat help section. But very annoying as a DM, to the point that it *feels* abusive when players do it.

[Desamir]

I probably should have added #trollingstatement or something. My point was it's a hotly disputed ruling, so it's absolutely NOT an unreasonable DM. Many DMs hold that's it's RAW that familiars can't Help, because you have to be able to do something in the first place to help.

My personal opinion is it's RAW they can help because that rule is in the skill section, not the combat help section. But very annoying as a DM, to the point that it *feels* abusive when players do it.

It makes some sense from a flavor point of view (e.g. bird flapping in their face). That said, I wouldn't fault a DM for disallowing it at the outset, if only because A) familiars are plenty useful without it, and B) it makes Owl less of a mandatory choice.

In fact, Flyby is probably the real culprit. Ban that and the problem solves itself.

[Millstone85]

In fact, Flyby is probably the real culprit. Ban that and the problem solves itself.What about the Invisibility of Chain familiars? It also protects them from opportunity attacks.

[Desamir]

What about the Invisibility of Chain familiars? It also protects them from opportunity attacks.

I'd honestly be okay with that, it's their schtick. Chain familiars are able to attack, too.

[FinnS]

Especially since one of the preconditions for the help action being capable of doing the action you're helping

Except they can. Pact of the Chain Warlock can have their familiars actually attack.
Besides, being able to attack isn't a requirement for "helping". Providing a distraction qualifies as per the Thief Mage Hand or Wolf totem Barbarian just to name a few circumstances.

"Hargon, the Wizard, sends his owl familiar to fly into the Ogre's face distracting it, providing the Fighter Jaxin with a temporary opening in the Ogre's defenses."

Personally, I find this pretty hard to justify not being allowed especially considering It's only for a single attack and not full-time Advantage like Mage Hand or a Wolf totem Barbarian.

[Cybren]

Except they can. Pact of the Chain Warlock can have their familiars actually attack.
Besides, being able to attack isn't a requirement for "helping". Providing a distraction qualifies as per the Thief Mage Hand or Wolf totem Barbarian just to name a few circumstances.

"Hargon, the Wizard, sends his owl familiar to fly into the Ogre's face distracting it, providing the Fighter Jaxin with a temporary opening in the Ogre's defenses."

Personally, I find this pretty hard to justify not being allowed especially considering It's only for a single attack and not full-time Advantage like Mage Hand or a Wolf totem Barbarian.

Being able to do the thing you're helping with is offered as a general (but not necessarily absolute) requirement of the help section on ability checks. The help action in combat makes no mention of this but it isn't an unfair extrapolation to require it. I'm more curious why familiars seem to have no sense of self preservation that it would fly willingly towards the maw of an ogre in that example, though.

[Millstone85]

I'm more curious why familiars seem to have no sense of self preservation that it would fly willingly towards the maw of an ogre in that example, though.Well, it is not like the ogre can permanently destroy this "familiar spirit". Maybe it is confident its master will summon it again, or maybe it is fine with going back to whatever plane it was taken from.

Alternatively, the familiar doesn't have a choice. It is compelled to obey.

[FinnS]

Being able to do the thing you're helping with is offered as a general (but not necessarily absolute) requirement of the help section on ability checks. The help action in combat makes no mention of this but it isn't an unfair extrapolation to require it. I'm more curious why familiars seem to have no sense of self preservation that it would fly willingly towards the maw of an ogre in that example, though.

It is an unfair extrapolation though because of Thief Mage Hand.
And again, the familiar is only providing Advantage for a single attack not all attacks like the Mage Hand.

Like I said, the argument against is extremely weak considering it's solely based on vague wording vs multiple real examples for.

[Cybren]

It is an unfair extrapolation though because of Thief Mage Hand.
And again, the familiar is only providing Advantage for a single attack not all attacks like the Mage Hand.

Like I said, the argument against is extremely weak considering it's solely based on vague wording vs multiple real examples for.
I don't see what thief mage hand has to do with this. This is about actions a familiar can reasonably take in combat, not rogues.


Well, it is not like the ogre can permanently destroy this "familiar spirit". Maybe it is confident its master will summon it again, or maybe it is fine with going back to whatever plane it was taken from.

Alternatively, the familiar doesn't have a choice. It is compelled to obey.
I'm not entirely compelled by this argument. The ogre can kill the familiar, that isn't going to be fun whether it has foreknowledge that it can be summoned again.

[FinnS]

I don't see what thief mage hand has to do with this. This is about actions a familiar can reasonably take in combat, not rogues.

C'mon now, let's have an honest argument shall we?
Are you honestly arguing that one is not like the other?
That an INVISIBLE hand can provide a full-time Advantage through distraction in combat yet a fully VISIBLE animal can't even provide Advantage through distraction for a single attack?

It's a plain and simple weak argument sir.


I'm not entirely compelled by this argument. The ogre can kill the familiar, that isn't going to be fun whether it has foreknowledge that it can be summoned again.
It's a spirit controlled by the summoner. Even the form the spirit takes is determined by the summoner.

[Cybren]

The hand isn't a creature. The hand is capable of that only because the rogue controlling it gains a class ability that lets it do that. It's the height of intellectual dishonesty to use that as indicative of some broader meaning.

[FinnS]

The hand isn't a creature. The hand is capable of that only because the rogue controlling it gains a class ability that lets it do that. It's the height of intellectual dishonesty to use that as indicative of some broader meaning.

Really, logic is meaningless then?

So your argument is that a Familiar can't use the Help action because it's not capable of doing the action on its own?
So then, according to you, a Pact of the Chain Warlock's familiar would be able to use the Help action right?

And by this definition, it means that it's not that Familiars aren't capable of attacking, it's simply that non-PotC Locks don't have the option to allow their Familiars to use their action for an attack.

Now going further, any caster can use their familiar to deliver a touch ATTACK at range.

I can understand if one were to restrict a Familiar to only using the Help action in place of the summoner's action but to say a Familiar can't use the Help action at all is just plain stupid and has no basis for an argument.

[Desamir]

I'm more curious why familiars seem to have no sense of self preservation that it would fly willingly towards the maw of an ogre in that example, though.

The spell says it "always obeys your commands." Seems pretty clear.

[Cybren]

It has nothing to do with logic. The ability mentions that the hand is distracting but in play it is clearly a property of the arcane trickster and not the hand- it can't actually take the help action, and it can't grant advantage to anyone but the rogue. You are following the common line of reasoning that players do wherein they try to find permissive readings of the rules to justify things going in their favor. In this instance it isn't even necessary- the rules seem to show that familiars can take the help action, I only pointed out that the reasons a DM might forbid it aren't arbitrary or unfair at all, and really, going from "the use of helping in skills can be extrapolated to combat" is a lot more sensible than "this thirteenth level rogue subclass ability establishes precedence for familiars helping in combat"

It has nothing to do with logic. The ability mentions that the hand is distracting but in play it is clearly a property of the arcane trickster and not the hand- it can't actually take the help action, and it can't grant advantage to anyone but the rogue. You are following the common line of reasoning that players do wherein they try to find permissive readings of the rules to justify things going in their favor. In this instance it isn't even necessary- the rules seem to show that familiars can take the help action, I only pointed out that the reasons a DM might forbid it aren't arbitrary or unfair at all, and really, going from "the use of helping in skills can be extrapolated to combat" is a lot more sensible than "this thirteenth level rogue subclass ability establishes precedence for familiars helping in combat"


The spell says it "always obeys your commands." Seems pretty clear.
That's why it's curious, and not wrong. It's an intelligent creature that acts independently of you. Is its loyalty specifically a property of the spell? An implied positive relationship? A gameplay conceit?

[Zalabim]

I'm not entirely compelled by this argument. The ogre can kill the familiar, that isn't going to be fun whether it has foreknowledge that it can be summoned again.
"When the familiar drops to 0 hit points, it disappears, leaving behind no physical form. It reappears after you cast this spell again."
The ogre cannot kill the familar. It can cause the familiar to disappear. There's no telling if that's fun or painful or anything else. Power Word: Kill could certainly kill a familiar, but an ogre could not.

I only pointed out that the reasons a DM might forbid it aren't arbitrary or unfair at all,
Assuming both sides are equally supported, picking one side or the other is entirely arbitrary. When one side is more supported, picking the other side would seem extra arbitrary, and may be unfair as well. I don't have that experience.

[Cybren]

I'm not sure the familiar will appreciate that difference once it gets chewed up. Additionally, no, it's not ubfair, it's not arbitrary. Familiars aren't really meant for combat. That's why chain familiars are cool- because they can fight (somewhat).

[Millstone85]

That's why it's curious, and not wrong. It's an intelligent creature that acts independently of you. Is its loyalty specifically a property of the spell? An implied positive relationship? A gameplay conceit?It is necessarily a gameplay conceit. As for the in-universe justification, there are many options:
* A familiar functions on a "Your command is my wish" basis, which is a much more absolute loyalty than the other way around. The creature was made to desire what it is ordered to do.
* A familiar doesn't want to expose itself to terrible pain, but it is a slave to the spell that summoned it.
* A familiar could disobey, but that would have terrible consequences for it. For example, a warlock's patron may have sent them a familiar as a servant and would be displeased to see the familiar not do its job.
* Etc.

Of course, a familiar is also an NPC under the DM's control, so you know it is going to be contrarious at some point.

[Tanarii]

Of course, a familiar is also an NPC under the DM's control, so you know it is going to be contrarious at some point.I've seen many players object to the idea that a familiar is in any way an NPC under DM's control.

I generally run it that they can be NPCs with my occasional input on actions, especially if acting separately from their master. Although, except for the Warlock Chain familiars (which are Evil alignment when in the appropriate forms) they're not usually that contrarious* IMC. But especially in AL, I've heard more than a few players straight up state there is no rules justification when DMs try to have the familiar do something, any more than their is to state what a PC does.

*great word by the way. I'm very contrarious myself.

[Millstone85]

Although, except for the Warlock Chain familiars (which are Evil alignment when in the appropriate forms) they're not usually that contrarious* IMC.I would indeed expect this more from a warlock's familiar than from a wizard's. The wizard can claim they took this simple spirit and modeled it into a form of their own design. The warlock probably doesn't know what exactly they called into the world. That might be true with Tome too.

But it is mean of you to say only the imp and quasit are appropriate forms for a Chain familiar.


*great word by the way. I'm very contrarious myself.I am fluent in Wiktionary but I often ignore the "archaic" warning.

[Tanarii]

But it is mean of you to say only the imp and quasit are appropriate forms for a Chain familiar.Good thing I didn't say that then.

[Millstone85]

Good thing I didn't say that then.I guess my English is weak today.

[Tanarii]

I guess my English is weak today.
Maybe mine is, and I said that even though it's not what I thought I said. lol

What I meant was: ([the Warlock Chain familiars] are Evil alignment when in the appropriate forms that have an evil Alignment in the stat block)

[Vogonjeltz]

Whether a Paladin can use Great Weapon Style on smites. Fortunate for me the DM allows it for the game where I'm playing a Paladin. For another game that Paladin player could not.

You don't need Sage Advice for this (it only confirms what's already written in the rules on these topics), Smite doesn't qualify for the fighting style re-rolls, it's not a weapon attack damage die, it's a spell effect (for the spell) or an ability that activates after a weapon attack hits. In no case are the damage dice from those abilities part of the attack itself. Same time, different sources.


The ability to break down a wooden door. One DM gave autosuccess. Another DM said just don't roll a 1. A third DM gave the door AC 10.

So, none of them followed the rules in the DMG, great!

Forcing a door is a DC check (DMG 102), breaking the door is an attack, and Wooden objects have an AC of 15, not 10. (DMG 246).

Of course, only those DMs knew the quality of the wooden door you that was being broken or (seemingly) forced.

Just becuase different DMs may or may not follow the rules does not reflect on if the rules are good or bad.

Pex, you have been arguing the rules are bad as evidenced by not liking the DM choices, that's an unsubstantiated argument based on the available facts.


Not at all. It's a totally normal ruling by DMs to prevent Familiars from being overpowered.

It may be normalized, but it's still contrary to the rules. There is no injunction against Familiars using the help action to give advantage to another character's attack. Using help to grant advantage is to feint or distract, not to attack. So, even if it were the case that the statement in the ability checks chapter applied to attack, the Familiar wouldn't have to attack, just distract (which they are not prohibited from doing).

To circle back, the rules exist, but DMs who don't get them right or fail to check all the relevant rules or apply rules to the wrong situation, or just make up their own, don't make the rules themselves non-existent or bad. It's user-error all the way.

[Pex]

If the DMs weren't following the rules in the DMG for breaking down doors, I find it telling that all the DMs weren't following the rules. One can conjecture as to why, but I would have to ask each DM for a definitive answer which I'm not able to do. The biased answer is that since Skill DCs are DC Whoever Is DM That Day Feels Like They Should Be, why should breaking down a door be any different. Defined DCs generally only exist for class abilities and monster powers. Anything else is made up.

The laziest resolution is PC rolls high: success. PC rolls low: fail. PC rolls in the middle: Partial success/fail with explanation as to why. I find myself sometimes questioning if this "only joking" is really what's going on.

[Tanarii]

If the DMs weren't following the rules in the DMG for breaking down doors, I find it telling that all the DMs weren't following the rules. One can conjecture as to why, but I would have to ask each DM for a definitive answer which I'm not able to do. The biased answer is that since Skill DCs are DC Whoever Is DM That Day Feels Like They Should Be, why should breaking down a door be any different. Defined DCs generally only exist for class abilities and monster powers. Anything else is made up.I find it telling that the majority of DMs outright ignore or make up the rules on the spot too. They did it regularly in AD&D 1e & BECMI, AD&D 2e, D&D 3e, D&D 4e, and now they do it for D&D 5e. (Edit: I left out the important part here, before my entire rant below. Which is: this tendency is exactly why 5e was designed the way it was. To be give the DM as much flexibility as possible to make up **** on the fly / adapt, while still providing some reasonable structure and ability for the players to know what they can accomplish in advance. Especially since the designers knew the vast majority of DMs are just going to ignore any complex codified rules anyway.)

What's interesting to me is even in a very simple system like 5e, the simplest since BECMI, one designed to give them maximum flexibility while still providing a structure to maintain consistent rulings within certain bounds ... DMs absolutely will not bother to learn the rules. Instead just make **** up completely based on what they think feels right. Often using previous editions as a basis, or what makes the most sense, or what's the most 'realistic'.

Like those idiots on the Critical Hits podcasts. They're not even playing D&D. They're playing 'make up something that sounds like a game with rules but is actually free form acting with fiat on-the-spot resolution'. I sure wouldn't want to play in a game with absolutely no structure, and many DMs make even 5e feel like that. So I do understand your complaints. I just think your placing of the fiat/structure line is different than mine.




The laziest resolution is PC rolls high: success. PC rolls low: fail. PC rolls in the middle: Partial success/fail with explanation as to why. I find myself sometimes questioning if this "only joking" is really what's going on.It really is what's going on with many DMs. They just look at your die, or hear the result number you give them with bonuses, and decide if it sounds high enough to pass. They're not even setting a DC on the spot.

There are plenty of DMs that haven't even read the DMG guidelines. It baffles me that these aren't in the basic rules, because they're far more important than encounter building rules or a set of basic monsters. If a DM hasn't read them at least once, they're not qualified to run D&D 5e. It's, like, the most basic requirement. That's not to say they'll be a "Bad DM" (a term I loathe). They may turn out to be quite entertaining. But it's the core of 5e resolution, any DM worth his salt should at least want to know how it's supposed to work before they start throwing it out the window.

[Cybren]

Like those idiots on the Critical Hits podcasts. They're not even playing D&D. They're playing 'make up something that sounds like a game with rules but is actually free form acting with fiat on-the-spot resolution'. I sure wouldn't want to play in a game with absolutely no structure, and many DMs make even 5e feel like that. So I do understand your complaints. I just think your placing of the fiat/structure line is different than mine.

While I've never listened to this particular podcast I this this is off the mark for a variety of reasons: firstly as you admit in that post, this is how the majority of people play D&D. They use the rules they think they know, as correct as they are, and don't really check to see how correct they have it until they encounter a problem. Generally a problem is "i have no idea how to resolve this" or "things aren't fun right now is there something we're missing". Barring those (and a few other similar) events, there's no need for a group of people who are having fun to learn the rules better, because it's serving them fine already. On top of that, most D&D players are not enfranchised enough to participate in theorycraft discussions or debate RAW vs RAI on some forum- for them, the total amount of time they spend thinking about D&D is the time they spend playing D&D and a few inconsistent hours talking with other players throughout the week. Secondly, it's a podcast. Its needs are not the same as other games, because they are creating an audio product for other people to consume and not just playing a game for their own enjoyment. Thirdly, if you think that this podcast is bad I definitely don't recommend you listen to The Adventure Zone (which is a shame because it's one of the funniest pieces of media of the last century or two)

[Tanarii]

While I've never listened to this particular podcast I this this is off the mark for a variety of reasons: youre right. It's off. I meant the Critical Role podcast. But the rest of what I said stands. It's very intentionally not D&D. It's acting & storytelling, hidden under the thin veneer of roleplaying.

[Cybren]

youre right. It's off. I meant the Critical Role podcast. But the rest of what I said stands. It's very intentionally not D&D. It's acting & storytelling, hidden under the thin veneer of roleplaying.

I mean, i haev seen Critical Role, and it's not my preferred actual play podcast (that would be the lovely and wonderful friends at the table), I think you're being unfair. It is D&D, because D&D is a lot of different things to a lot of different people.

[Tanarii]

I mean, i haev seen Critical Role, and it's not my preferred actual play podcast (that would be the lovely and wonderful friends at the table), I think you're being unfair. It is D&D, because D&D is a lot of different things to a lot of different people.You're right. A lot of people do something that isn't D&D, then hide it under a thin veneer of roleplaying by trying to call it D&D.

[Desamir]

You're right. A lot of people do something that isn't D&D, then hide it under a thin veneer of roleplaying by trying to call it D&D.

Badwrongfun?

[Tanarii]

Badwrongfun?
Clearly Hahahaha nah I'm talking about people that basically ignore the rules and just make it up as they go, stealing from other systems, or (because in this particular case I believe they're devs in their own right) trying out new things for the sake of testing. Or just because they're getting their fun a different way not related to being true to a system. Nothing wrong with that but there's a point at which you can't say they're really using a given system.

[Pex]

I find it telling that the majority of DMs outright ignore or make up the rules on the spot too. They did it regularly in AD&D 1e & BECMI, AD&D 2e, D&D 3e, D&D 4e, and now they do it for D&D 5e. (Edit: I left out the important part here, before my entire rant below. Which is: this tendency is exactly why 5e was designed the way it was. To be give the DM as much flexibility as possible to make up **** on the fly / adapt, while still providing some reasonable structure and ability for the players to know what they can accomplish in advance. Especially since the designers knew the vast majority of DMs are just going to ignore any complex codified rules anyway.)

What's interesting to me is even in a very simple system like 5e, the simplest since BECMI, one designed to give them maximum flexibility while still providing a structure to maintain consistent rulings within certain bounds ... DMs absolutely will not bother to learn the rules. Instead just make **** up completely based on what they think feels right. Often using previous editions as a basis, or what makes the most sense, or what's the most 'realistic'.

Like those idiots on the Critical Hits podcasts. They're not even playing D&D. They're playing 'make up something that sounds like a game with rules but is actually free form acting with fiat on-the-spot resolution'. I sure wouldn't want to play in a game with absolutely no structure, and many DMs make even 5e feel like that. So I do understand your complaints. I just think your placing of the fiat/structure line is different than mine.



It really is what's going on with many DMs. They just look at your die, or hear the result number you give them with bonuses, and decide if it sounds high enough to pass. They're not even setting a DC on the spot.

There are plenty of DMs that haven't even read the DMG guidelines. It baffles me that these aren't in the basic rules, because they're far more important than encounter building rules or a set of basic monsters. If a DM hasn't read them at least once, they're not qualified to run D&D 5e. It's, like, the most basic requirement. That's not to say they'll be a "Bad DM" (a term I loathe). They may turn out to be quite entertaining. But it's the core of 5e resolution, any DM worth his salt should at least want to know how it's supposed to work before they start throwing it out the window.

I admit, I first thought you were being sarcastic (I wasn't taking it personally if you were.), but I'm convinced you are being serious. Sorry to hear that this has been your roleplaying experiences. Despite all my ranting this hasn't been mine. The DMs I played with, even the few "tyrannical" ones, have followed the rules. House rules existed, of course, but they did know the rules and I knew what my characters could and could not do with different DMs using the same system. In unique situations in previous editions did the success hinge just on luck of the die roll, but the uniqueness was important enough and accepted. Only in 5E have I felt it sometimes be a regular occurrence. Only in 5E have I felt the need when meeting a new DM to ask "what rules are you using?". I happen to like the DM and game well enough I just get over it. The only game I quit was because the DM was a tyrant and most of the players were "that guy" jerks. I do overall like 5E and play it.

[Saeviomage]

The game works just fine. They knew what they were doing. I would suggest actually reading the 5e skill system. It is a different system than the one in 3.x.

The thing is, you are only making a check in the first place if it is interesting, the outcome is unknown, and there is a consequence for failure. Otherwise there is no check.

Is it interesting? You're describing the action, so it must be of some interest. This isn't actually a useful qualifier.

Is the outcome unknown? Well, it is if you decide to roll dice. Again, this isn't actually a useful qualifier.

Is there a consequence for failure? A DMs can make a consequence for failure in the event of a failure. Again: this isn't actually useful.

These all sound useful if you already know how to run an interesting game.

The DMG is actually pretty darn specific about DCs. I think you could fault the DM for not reading it.
Yeah, it's specific about what easy means to someone who is not good at the task. What it fails to mention is that easy is still something that a starting character who is good at the task will fail on a regular basis, and it also doesn't explain the cumulative effects of requiring multiple sub-tasks to succeed at a task. This kind of goes hand-in-hand with the advice not to roll for 'very easy' tasks, which effectively means that there IS no challenge that someone skilled and adept will always pass, while joe average will sometimes fail.

Further, a DM could be forgiven for thinking that 3 rolls at various DC 10 subtasks is just making sure that everyone's character can contribute with their good skills and high attributes, whereas in actual fact it means you end up with a ~50% chance of failure. Again - because the descriptor is 'easy' and the only example is 'people not particularly good at this still have a 50% chance to succeed'.

[djreynolds]

Question?
Telekinesis opposes a strength check. So basically I would only add my modifier versus their casting stat.
No proficiency added for saves.
No proficiency added for athletics.
So for a 20 strength I get +5 only, if raging advantage?

[Trace]

This seems like a dumb question, but what are the differences between checks and saves? Is it just that one is tied to skills and the other to proficiency?

If I understand things correctly, a check costs an Action. That's useful when you cast something like Wrathful Smite, and your opponent has to use an Action to try to shake off the fright instead of whomping on you.

[truemane]

Metamagic Mod: Save vs Necromancy failed!