One problem for the 'Guy at the Gym' and high level martials

[Captain Cap]

Comprehensive rules have a cost all of their own, one which for this edition (and most other editions) the Devs decided they didn't want to pay.

Of course, there is always a trade-off, but it isn't really obvious what's the right balance, or more precisely, the right balance for most. For what it's worth, threads like this show a few of us would be more comfortable with some extra codification.

[GloatingSwine]

What exactly is the difference? If you're a higher level, and a martial character, you're a higher level martial character.

They could have taken those levels in anything, maybe they decided they wanted to have 5 levels of Bard or something.

But you can't know "can I clear X gap that's wider than my checkless jumping distance" because at that point the situation is up to the DM. Do you have a polevault? Is it raining? Are you being shot at? The martial has no control over any of these. The DM should be the one to either tell the player they automatically make it, success is impossible, or a roll of some kind is needed.

Right, and I'm saying that martial characters at higher levels should get class features which increase things like their checkless jumping distance with some limits on the amount they can use it but not the circumstances. The things they can do with those class features should be things that are at least useful in a fight (particularly for getting at the enemy by countering things like flight within certain bounds) but have potential applications outside of them. So eg. they could get a resource called "heroic effort" that they can do N times per long rest which allows them to do things like jump double or triple their normal distance without a check, move and fight freely underwater for some amount of time, climb faster and higher than they otherwise could, etc. and as they get to higher levels the things they can do with them extend (get better) and expand (get more different applications).

And when those things exist, when you say "This character can definitely jump at least 60' three times a day" then you have benchmarks for setting DCs for checked abilities for those characters which feel specific to them because of the class levels they took.

And while spells may carry greater assurances for casters in this regard, they also have greater limitations. Sure Dimension Door tells you exactly how far you can go, but it imposes strict limits on what you can bring with you that jumping/vaulting doesn't, and it costs a precious slot whereas the martial can long jump all day long.

And that's why you make it a class feature with its own cost, so that the martial can't jump like that all day long, but it also provides a benchmark for how they can possibly jump if you want to set a DC for them to jump without it, which puts them ahead of non-martial classes that don't have those features.

[NichG]

I'm curious what would happen if a player went to session 0 in Psyren or Brookshw's games and asked them to fill out a work sheet writing, for every five levels of each base class, a paragraph explaining what they thought were reasonable things for that character to do with ability checks.

After all, if session 0 is supposed to align expectations and some players certainly have expectations of being able to know the kinds of things they're choosing between when picking their character, that should be a reasonable request to get the DM to explain what those things will be at this table, and to commit to it in writing.

[Psyren]

Right, and I'm saying that martial characters at higher levels should get class features which increase things like their checkless jumping distance with some limits on the amount they can use it but not the circumstances. The things they can do with those class features should be things that are at least useful in a fight (particularly for getting at the enemy by countering things like flight within certain bounds) but have potential applications outside of them. So eg. they could get a resource called "heroic effort" that they can do N times per long rest which allows them to do things like jump double or triple their normal distance without a check, move and fight freely underwater for some amount of time, climb faster and higher than they otherwise could, etc. and as they get to higher levels the things they can do with them extend (get better) and expand (get more different applications).

And when those things exist, when you say "This character can definitely jump at least 60' three times a day" then you have benchmarks for setting DCs for checked abilities for those characters which feel specific to them because of the class levels they took.



And that's why you make it a class feature with its own cost, so that the martial can't jump like that all day long, but it also provides a benchmark for how they can possibly jump if you want to set a DC for them to jump without it, which puts them ahead of non-martial classes that don't have those features.

But that's the issue, because now you're getting into arbitrary limits that make sense from a game design perspective but absolutely none in the fiction. Why can a martial only jump like that 3x per day? When it's a racial (Satyr/Harengon) you can simply say "oh, they're magical creatures, any arbitrary limit is because that's how their innate magic works." When it's a spell, you can simply say "Oh, they spent a slot on it, and a character of this level only gets this many magical energy slots per day." But when it's a martial feature, how do you explain it? If they got it through push-ups or other martial training, why can't they simply train more to get more of it?

I'm curious what would happen if a player went to session 0 in Psyren or Brookshw's games and asked them to fill out a work sheet writing, for every five levels of each base class, a paragraph explaining what they thought were reasonable things for that character to do with ability checks.

After all, if session 0 is supposed to align expectations and some players certainly have expectations of being able to know the kinds of things they're choosing between when picking their character, that should be a reasonable request to get the DM to explain what those things will be at this table, and to commit to it in writing.

"My job is to design encounters where everyone can contribute and have fun. If you don't trust me to be able to do that without a written contract, then I wish you luck in your future gaming endeavors at a different table."

[NichG]

"My job is to design encounters where everyone can contribute and have fun. If you don't trust me to be able to do that without a written contract, then I wish you luck in your future gaming endeavors at a different table."

If I got that response to that request, I'd definitely not trust that DM any more even if I was leaning towards doing so before...

[SupahCabre]

I agree with @Pex, the abilities that Fighters have are so mundane and insignificant that it doesn't even matter if they can do it all day, like who gives a crap if you can longjump 20 ft? You aren't jumping all the time. If an 8 strength wizard needed to jump it takes a 1st level spell and it's greater distance than the fighter (better hope DM shortens those cravisses). It's like saying the fighter can do jumping jacks all day, it's still useless to mention since it's not important in the slightest unless DM specifically tailors the whole game to try to make Fighter useful

[Brookshw]

I'm curious what would happen if a player went to session 0 in Psyren or Brookshw's games and asked them to fill out a work sheet writing, for every five levels of each base class, a paragraph explaining what they thought were reasonable things for that character to do with ability checks.

After all, if session 0 is supposed to align expectations and some players certainly have expectations of being able to know the kinds of things they're choosing between when picking their character, that should be a reasonable request to get the DM to explain what those things will be at this table, and to commit to it in writing.

We'd have a conversation

[Segev]

I'm not surprised, but all I really care about is that you understand my position like BRC does now.

Understood and appreciated.

No - the task has one DC, based on whether it needs talent/training/both/magic.

It's just that the DC doesn't matter for one character because they don't get to roll at all.

(...)

Checks that are doable for one person and impossible for another can happen all the time.

Let's use your favorite example, climbing a tree. Would you let a paraplegic roll? Someone with no arms or legs? A seal? A fish? A clam?

My favorite example is actually climbing a rope, but your point is equivalent either way, I believe, so proceeding:

Of course I would let a paraplegic roll; he still has working arms. Presumably, his paraplegia is represented in some way, if only by "not having functional legs," but if he has a "crawling speed" or his ability to crawl is represented as "climbing" everywhere, I'd let him use that. A quadriplegic would have the "paralyzed" status, or something very akin to it, which would negate his ability to climb the rope.

Climbing requires you have a movement speed. Does a clam have an applicable one? Most of the things you name lack a land speed, and climbing without a climb speed is based on your land speed. So if you have 0 ft. land speed, no, I am not going to let you climb a tree or a rope.

I also wouldn't allow a grappled individual to climb that tree. His movement speed is 0 ft.

If you can point to something about the wizard's mechanical state that differs from the barbarians and which says the wizard should not be capable of even attempting to jump that DC 20 (Hard to jump) ravine, I will agree that you should deny him the opportunity. Is the wizard paralyzed? Grappled? A clam or other creature with 0 ft. of movement speed? "Training" is represented entirely by whether you have proficiency, and thus get to add your proficiency bonus to the roll.

If the jumping rules for how much further you can go with an Athletics roll once you're over your minimum distance were in place, maybe your example would work out organically. Maybe it's a DC 20 to manage to, say, double your jumping distance. If that's the case, the wizard's 8 strength gets him 8 feet, and he can't even make the DC 20 to double that to 16, while the barbarian's 18 strength doubles to 36 if he hits DC 20 (which he does at LEAST 35% of the time, since he's proficient in Athletics, and that goes up as his level raises his proficiency bonus), so in that case, the wizard definitely cannot make that jump, even if he rolls an 18 on the die. Or, if the wizard has 10 strength and you set the DC at 18, even if the wizard successfully doubles his jumping distance to 20 feet, the 30 foot ravine is simply too much.

But this comes about because of more solidly-defined jumping check mechanics, which I made up on the spot here because woefully the game doesn't offer me any advice. I honestly don't know if "doubling your jumping distance is a Hard check" is reasonable or not. This, unlike the "climbing a rope is Hard" example, doesn't give me a book-provided counterpoint to show that my instinct is off, and I also lack instincts on this one. I haven't tried jumping enough to know what my personal variance is. I don't know if "double distance at DC 20" is way too much or way too little or just right.

[NichG]

We'd have a conversation

Well what I'm getting at is, I actually do accept the argument 'each table is likely to want to have its own standards, so if 5e printed specific rules you were almost certainly going to have to throw out and replace with your own standards, that would be a bad thing'. But that argument is only valid if 'each table' is still willing to actually fill that void with something that provides an equal amount of confidence from the player side in what their build choices will mean and what their character will be able to do. That doesn't have to be per-table DCs, but even just stuff like 'he way I see it, a Lv20 character is like someone from Celtic or Greek Myth, and a Lv20 Fighter should be able to lift the sky or drink the sea' or 'actually, I don't really want to get into this whole scaling stuff, Lv20 characters are just normal people who are far along in their career, but in this setting it happens that if your career is being a politician, you get a nuclear football when you hit the top; but if your career is being a football player, its money and maybe at most double the physical parameters of other humans'. Then people could choose if that's the kind of game they want to play a Fighter in, we could reasonably have a discussion about the relative tradeoffs of needing to write your own rules versus being able to purchase them pre-made, etc.

Saying 'I want the freedom to have my own vision' but then not actually wanting to commit to what that vision is is a red flag to me that something about the argument is disingenuous.

[Captain Cap]

When it's a racial (Satyr/Harengon) you can simply say "oh, they're magical creatures, any arbitrary limit is because that's how their innate magic works."

Mmm, I think it's pretty obvious their leaping abilities have nothing to do with magic: they have stronger legs with respect to they body weight, thus they can jump higher/further.

And thus we have a case of contrasting assumptions.

"My job is to design encounters where everyone can contribute and have fun. If you don't trust me to be able to do that without a written contract, then I wish you luck in your future gaming endeavors at a different table."

What about the example of the Diviner that can't attempt the same jump as the barbarian, even though they could make it if they got to try with the same DC (by rolling 20)?
What if they don't find it fun, but unfair? Are you automatically conceding them to roll? If the answer is no, they have every right to think you aren't able to always provide the best experience for them.

[Psyren]

If I got that response to that request, I'd definitely not trust that DM any more even if I was leaning towards doing so before...

And that's fine by me; one thing about D&D that has remained fairly consistent across editions is that there are always more willing players than DMs. No, I'm not going to predesign 20 levels of encounters for you in 5-level increments during session zero.

I agree with @Pex, the abilities that Fighters have are so mundane and insignificant that it doesn't even matter if they can do it all day, like who gives a crap if you can longjump 20 ft? You aren't jumping all the time. If an 8 strength wizard needed to jump it takes a 1st level spell and it's greater distance than the fighter (better hope DM shortens those cravisses). It's like saying the fighter can do jumping jacks all day, it's still useless to mention since it's not important in the slightest unless DM specifically tailors the whole game to try to make Fighter useful

You don't have to "tailor the game to the fighter" though. In fact it's the opposite - you usually have to go out of your way to make martials useless physically. How many buildings in a city are constructed more than jumping distance apart? How many natural cliffs and dungeon walls are perfectly smooth with no handholds? How many Large or larger monsters don't have space between their legs that you can acrobatically slide through? How many taverns have no furniture, temples have no columns, caves have no loose rubble etc.?

And all that is ignoring the fact that martials typically have adventuring gear too, that's why it's so cheap. Expecting smooth walls? Buy some pitons and a grappling hook. Worried about gaps? Bring a pole or staff. Can't pick locks? Buy some acid. Stuck door or slab? Crowbar. Helping your allies up a cliff? Rope. Scouting ahead? Spyglass.

Climbing requires you have a movement speed. Does a clam have an applicable one? Most of the things you name lack a land speed, and climbing without a climb speed is based on your land speed. So if you have 0 ft. land speed, no, I am not going to let you climb a tree or a rope.

Don't dodge, seals have a land speed. Can they climb a tree/rope, or not?

Mmm, I think it's pretty obvious their leaping abilities have nothing to do with magic: they have stronger legs with respect to they body weight, thus they can jump higher/further.

And thus we have a case of contrasting assumptions.

A fey creature has "nothing to do with magic?"

What about the example of the Diviner that can't attempt the same jump as the barbarian, even though they could make it if they got to try with the same DC (by rolling 20)?
What if they don't find it fun, but unfair? Are you automatically conceding them the roll? If the answer is no, they have every right to think you aren't able to always provide the best experience for them.

If they think Portent lets them make any check in the game simply because they can bank a roll for it then sure, my table is the wrong table for them. Banking a natural 20 does not let you jump to the moon.

[Captain Cap]

If they think Portent lets them make any check in the game simply because they can bank a roll for it then sure, my table is the wrong table for them. Banking a natural 20 does not let you jump to the moon.

Maybe they just think (and reasonably so, given the expectations coming with the PHB), that if a barbarian can make it with a total roll of 20, they could too.

Besides, are you comparing jumping over a chasm with a stunt physically possible to accomplish by a human being (or the barbarian wouldn't be able to) to jumping to the moon?

A fey creature has "nothing to do with magic?"

Was I referring to any aspect of the creature? Is any bodily function of a dragon magical?

[GloatingSwine]

But that's the issue, because now you're getting into arbitrary limits that make sense from a game design perspective but absolutely none in the fiction. Why can a martial only jump like that 3x per day? When it's a racial (Satyr/Harengon) you can simply say "oh, they're magical creatures, any arbitrary limit is because that's how their innate magic works." When it's a spell, you can simply say "Oh, they spent a slot on it, and a character of this level only gets this many magical energy slots per day." But when it's a martial feature, how do you explain it? If they got it through push-ups or other martial training, why can't they simply train more to get more of it?

The fiction descends from the rules. If the rules say "Fighters can do this thing a certain amount" then that's what the fiction says too.

"Because magic" is just a way of saying "because the rules say so" that lets you reserve special things for your preferred classes

[Segev]

Don't dodge, seals have a land speed. Can they climb a tree/rope, or not?

If they also had a feature that let them do it without occupying hands, sure. If not...well, climbing requires hands. I can't cite it off the top of my head, but given that things like Slippers of Spider Climb and the dhampir racial climb speed have to specify that they let you walk on walls and ceilings while keeping your hands free, it is probably in the rules somewhere. (If not, then I guess those features don't actually do anything other than reiterate something anybody can do while climbing.)

[Pex]

Some Barbarians do get such a button, e.g. Beast and Totem (Tiger). But my point is that adding such a button to every single Barbarian isn't actually needed. If you don't think the Barbarian should be able to fail the jump by that level, either don't ask them to roll, or make sure that a "failure" means they clear the gap with a complication of some kind.

This is where you keep missing the point. He knows as DM he can just allow the barbarian to do it. It's not a question of doing it in his game. It's a question of whether the rules of the game say the barbarian can do it. The rules don't. They leave it up to the DM. By leaving it up to the DM, the DM who won't allow it is not playing the game wrong but barbarians in those games don't get to be awesome. Meanwhile, the rules do say the wizard can do it via spells. Not just one spell but many spells to do it in a variety of ways. What is being asked is for is the rules to say barbarians get to do this awesome thing worthy of a high level power, just like the rules do for spellcasters. By "just like" i don't mean the same exact way (i.e. given spells) I mean "also".

He wants it as a class feature to reinforce it's the class that lets you be so awesome rather than anyone can do it by being high level.

[Psyren]

If they also had a feature that let them do it without occupying hands, sure. If not...well, climbing requires hands. I can't cite it off the top of my head, but given that things like Slippers of Spider Climb and the dhampir racial climb speed have to specify that they let you walk on walls and ceilings while keeping your hands free, it is probably in the rules somewhere. (If not, then I guess those features don't actually do anything other than reiterate something anybody can do while climbing.)

Perfect, we agree then. Having a land speed is not enough to let you climb, there are reasons to deny a roll.

Maybe they just think (and reasonably so, given the expectations coming with the PHB), that if a barbarian can make it with a total roll of 20, they could too.

Besides, are you comparing jumping over a chasm with a stunt physically possible to accomplish by a human being (or the barbarian wouldn't be able to) to jumping to the moon?

How far does a jump need to be before you rule it impossible and don't call for a roll? We agree the moon is out. The Pacific Ocean? Lake Huron? The Grand Canyon maybe?

Was I referring to any aspect of the creature? Is any bodily function of a dragon magical?

YES, explicitly so per Sage Advice. Just not the kind of magic you can dispel. The same applies to Satyrs.

The fiction descends from the rules. If the rules say "Fighters can do this thing a certain amount" then that's what the fiction says too.

"Because magic" is just a way of saying "because the rules say so" that lets you reserve special things for your preferred classes

I'm trying to get you to understand why magic is routinely allowed to do this in the fiction while martials are not. There is no cabal of designers that must take a vow to keep fighters down before they're allowed to put their names in a sourcebook, it's intuitive.

It's a question of whether the rules of the game say the barbarian can do it. The rules don't. They leave it up to the DM. By leaving it up to the DM, the DM who won't allow it is not playing the game wrong but barbarians in those games don't get to be awesome.

If you're playing with a DM that doesn't want martials to be awesome, no book is going to change that. Tell your DM you're not having fun, and if they refuse to care, find a new one.

[GloatingSwine]

I'm trying to get you to understand why magic is routinely allowed to do this in the fiction while martials are not. There is no cabal of designers that must take a vow to keep fighters down before they're allowed to put their names in a sourcebook, it's intuitive.

And I'm trying to get you to understand that the fiction changes if the rules do.

In 2nd edition there were no Warlocks, they did not exist in the fiction and the things they make pacts with only existed if the DM of the day chose to add them to a story. In 5th edition there are, and that means that all the things that warlocks can make pacts with exist whether the DM likes them or not.

Warlocks were not in the fiction, now they are.

Martials being able to do these things is not currently in the fiction but if the rules change to add those class features then they are part of the fiction.

The rules define the fiction, the fiction does not define the rules.

And no, there's no cabal of designers that have just decided to keep martials down, there's a lot of players who whine when casters aren't the specialest boys and girls though (see: 4th Edition).

[NichG]

And that's fine by me; one thing about D&D that has remained fairly consistent across editions is that there are always more willing players than DMs. No, I'm not going to predesign 20 levels of encounters for you in 5-level increments during session zero.

Whereas in other systems, this is exactly what the players having access to written rules and fiction examples provides. For many players, that is a necessary thing to have in order to get what they need out of a game. For understanding what their character can do and having an integrated sense of their own competencies, for understanding what the payoff is for directing the growth of their character in a certain direction, for being able to make plans and to be able to offer guarantees about their ability to accomplish their own role in plans as well as to recognize when their ability to do their part will be uncertain or impossible.

So players who want to engage in the game at that level, well, if they're playing 5e they're going to be playing casting classes even if they don't necessarily want to.

[Sorinth]

This is where you keep missing the point. He knows as DM he can just allow the barbarian to do it. It's not a question of doing it in his game. It's a question of whether the rules of the game say the barbarian can do it. The rules don't. They leave it up to the DM. By leaving it up to the DM, the DM who won't allow it is not playing the game wrong but barbarians in those games don't get to be awesome. Meanwhile, the rules do say the wizard can do it via spells. Not just one spell but many spells to do it in a variety of ways. What is being asked is for is the rules to say barbarians get to do this awesome thing worthy of a high level power, just like the rules do for spellcasters. By "just like" i don't mean the same exact way (i.e. given spells) I mean "also".

He wants it as a class feature to reinforce it's the class that lets you be so awesome rather than anyone can do it by being high level.

D&D wants to support all game styles, so they don't want to add a feature that makes one style the "default" and force DMs to house rule a bunch of stuff (Especially removing stuff) to play another style of game. As an example, if you look at the rules for jumping it says you can make an athletics check to exceed the normal distances without providing any rules/guidance for the check/distances. There is no default style, so whether it's anime jump over mountains or guy at the gym, the DM is the one who decides what makes sense. And presumably there should have been a session 0 where everybody gets on board with that game style.

[Psyren]

And I'm trying to get you to understand that the fiction changes if the rules do.

In 2nd edition there were no Warlocks, they did not exist in the fiction and the things they make pacts with only existed if the DM of the day chose to add them to a story. In 5th edition there are, and that means that all the things that warlocks can make pacts with exist whether the DM likes them or not.

Warlocks were not in the fiction, now they are.

Martials being able to do these things is not currently in the fiction but if the rules change to add those class features then they are part of the fiction.

The rules define the fiction, the fiction does not define the rules.

Getting magical powers by making a Faustian pact with a supernatural entity is nowhere near as tough a sell as getting them through crunches. It's not impossible to explain (see Psi Warrior and Echo Knight) but those powers work because they are limited by nature, and because there are still martial subclasses like Battlemaster who don't get any overt magic at all.

[Captain Cap]

YES, explicitly so per Sage Advice. Just not the kind of magic you can dispel. The same applies to Satyrs.

Except that no, the following quote doesn't confirm that all body functions of magical creatures are ascribable to magic, simply that magic is part of their physiology:

the background magic that is part of the D&D multiverse’s physics and the physiology of many D&D creatures

Hormones are a part of human physiology, but not everything that happens in the human body is due to hormones.
A magical creature could have magical eyes, wings etc. and everything else be perfectly mundane.

D&D wants to support all game styles

D&D doesn't support all game styles. To see this it's enough to give a look at any other RPG out there, or see how magic is codified: is there a magical healing skill/ability/feature that lets you freely reproduce all healing spells with even more varied parameters? No, so not all game styles are supported.

[NichG]

D&D wants to support all game styles, so they don't want to add a feature that makes one style the "default" and force DMs to house rule a bunch of stuff (Especially removing stuff) to play another style of game. As an example, if you look at the rules for jumping it says you can make an athletics check to exceed the normal distances without providing any rules/guidance for the check/distances. There is no default style, so whether it's anime jump over mountains or guy at the gym, the DM is the one who decides what makes sense. And presumably there should have been a session 0 where everybody gets on board with that game style.

Except now we have people saying 'no, its unreasonable for players to ask for this to be defined at session 0'...

[GloatingSwine]

Getting magical powers by making a Faustian pact with a supernatural entity is nowhere near as tough a sell as getting them through crunches. It's not impossible to explain (see Psi Warrior and Echo Knight) but those powers work because they are limited by nature, and because there are still martial subclasses like Battlemaster who don't get any overt magic at all.

I don't care how tough a sell it is. That is not the game designer's problem. The game designer's problem is to make sure people who want to play Fighter 20 can be in the same game at the same power level and feel like they're the most useful character in the party about as often as the person who plays Wizard 20 without the DM having to design everything around overcoming their limitations as a class both in and out of combat.

And that means giving martial classes more impressive features at high levels.

Things they can do when the player wants to, not when the DM decides they're allowed to. Things they can definitely do whether the DM wants them to or not.

Turn it on it's head.

Why is it appropriate for you to be able to regularly say "you can't do that" to Andy but not to Brenda because Andy is playing a Fighter and Brenda is playing a Cleric? Because the design of the cleric leaves a lot less room for the DM to say "you can't do that" than the design of the fighter, and you think that's good and proper.

[OvisCaedo]

Rules existing are a dire threat to the divine power of the DM.

[Drakevarg]

Things they can do when the player wants to, not when the DM decides they're allowed to. Things they can definitely do whether the DM wants them to or not.

The only thing a player can definitely do whether the DM wants them to or not is leave the table.

[Psyren]

Except that no, the following quote doesn't confirm that all body functions of magical creatures are ascribable to magic, simply that magic is part of their physiology:

Hormones are a part of human physiology, but not everything that happens in the human body is due to hormones.
A magical creature could have magical eyes, wings etc. and everything else be perfectly mundane.

Okay, and? A Satyr's legs clearly qualify. Tieflings can have goat legs too, but they can't jump like a Satyr can.

I don't care how tough a sell it is. That is not the game designer's problem. The game designer's problem is to make sure people who want to play Fighter 20 can be in the same game at the same power level and feel like they're the most useful character in the party about as often as the person who plays Wizard 20 without the DM having to design everything around overcoming their limitations as a class both in and out of combat.

Where is this "most useful" promise or expectation coming from? Do you have a citation?

Things they can do when the player wants to, not when the DM decides they're allowed to. Things they can definitely do whether the DM wants them to or not.

The only thing a player can definitely do whether the DM wants them to or not is leave the table.

^ That.

Why is it appropriate for you to be able to regularly say "you can't do that" to Andy but not to Brenda because Andy is playing a Fighter and Brenda is playing a Cleric? Because the design of the cleric leaves a lot less room for the DM to say "you can't do that" than the design of the fighter, and you think that's good and proper.

We're talking about ability check challenges. Yes, there are absolutely times when Brenda can do a thing and Andy doesn't get to roll. If I'm asking for knowledge of an obscure religious ceremony or demiplane, and Andy isn't trained in either, then he automatically fails while Brenda gets to roll.

[Telok]

Its rather a strange phenomenon to me that whenever people look for an example of skill checks being silly, their go to examples are things not actually covered by skill checks, like jumping or climbing. Yes, obviously the increase in athletics is not going to have a dramatic increase on your ability to jump, because its not actually governed by athletics in the first place except in fairly niche circumstances.

Wanna talk about stealth, perception, "does your character know a thing", or "can your character solve x riddle/problem"? Oh, wait, we have huge threads on those where even after 10 years people can't agree how any if that should work at even basic levels. And I can still point to DMs who'll rule totally based in their personal assumptions & narrative wants about your character's abilities based purely on class and race without regard to backstory, background, or anything else on the character sheet or in the rules.

[Captain Cap]

How far does a jump need to be before you rule it impossible and don't call for a roll? We agree the moon is out. The Pacific Ocean? Lake Huron? The Grand Canyon maybe?

Easy, whenever the DC for an able-bodied anthropomorphic character is higher than the maximum the character can hit by rolling.

Okay, and? A Satyr's legs clearly qualify. Tieflings can have goat legs too, but they can't jump like a Satyr can.

Maybe the Satyr's legs are stronger and their muscles are more akin to those of the animal, while the muscles of the Tiefling are made of mainly human tissues, and so less efficient.
The point is, you can explain their jumping abilities with magic, but you don't need to.

And that regarding feys and similar, but what about a Tabaxi, a simple catlike humanoid? They can move faster than a human in a short burst, is that a magical ability, simply because they can do something better than the average human without rolling dice?

If you're playing with a DM that doesn't want martials to be awesome, no book is going to change that. Tell your DM you're not having fun, and if they refuse to care, find a new one.

A book can help you understand it sooner and prevent you from wasting time.

Also, I think you messed a little with the quotes

[GloatingSwine]

Where is this "most useful" promise or expectation coming from? Do you have a citation?

It's inherent in a communal activity to be inclusive of all of the people performing the acivity. Letting players have as much time in the spotlight as each other is how you do that. Having one player whose class features let them be involved in solving problems much much more often than another is bad.

We're talking about ability check challenges. Yes, there are absolutely times when Brenda can do a thing and Andy doesn't get to roll. If I'm asking for knowledge of an obscure religious ceremony or demiplane, and Andy isn't trained in either, then he automatically fails while Brenda gets to roll.

Except we're not, are we. We're also talking about class features. And the Cleric has class features which the DM can't say no to, they're called spells. They get them for levelling up, they're baked into the class, and as long as the cleric did their paperwork that morning and has the material component when they want to cast them they can cast them and the DM has to really contort to say no to it happening.

Why do you think martial classes should not have that. Why do you think some characters should be inherently more shackled to your desires over those of their player than others, based on which classes they chose?

The only thing a player can definitely do whether the DM wants them to or not is leave the table.

True, but extreme. The rules define what a player should expect from the DM, and that includes class features like "casters get spells and can use them when they want".

[Drakevarg]

True, but extreme. The rules define what a player should expect from the DM, and that includes class features like "casters get spells and can use them when they want".

The rules provide a framework for the DM. What meat goes around that framework, and even what parts of the framework are kept, are at the DM's discretion. Nothing about spellcasting is more ironclad or sacred than rules about skill checks, they're just more extensively written. The only reason for rules at all is because it keeps the DM from having to invent them out of whole cloth themselves.

You are correct that the rules provide the players a baseline of what to expect, but this is just further in the service preventing the DM from needing to serve as the entire game engine on the fly. At the end of the day, no matter how extensive the rules are, they can only provide the framework. The ultimate reality of what's going on in the game is always the DM's responsibility. The rules can say you can do X all they want, but if the DM simply never prevents the opportunity for you to do X, what the book says doesn't matter.

The only duty the DM has is to their players. The rules are only a shortcut to that, they don't mean anything else.