Bad Math?

[mandor1784]

I keep reading people mention the D&D system is based on bad math. But no one clarifies or supports the statement. Is it true? If so, how?

Thanks!

[Merc_Kilsek]

I keep reading people mention the D&D system is based on bad math. But no one clarifies or supports the statement. Is it true? If so, how?

Thanks!

Well no one has seen the Player's Handbook yet. So most of what you read is taken from the play tests and previews that have been shown. So take most of what is said with that context in mind. The system itself is playable without any real major issues form the open/closed play testing I've experienced. Some people have concerns and opinions on balance/rules but again still waiting on that PHB to be released.

You should rule the free basic Dungeons and Dragons rules you can download from their website. It will give you a better idea how you feel about the system.

[VeliciaL]

I think the main concern I've heard is proficient saves outpacing non-proficient saves, by a pretty wide margin by high levels.

[mandor1784]

I have read the basic and played 2e and 1e. So I'm quite familiar. I just don't see the 'bad math'. And if that is being used entirely around 'outpaced non prof saves' then- a) mountain out of a molehill and b) not broken. Simply a choice that I don't think is bad : it means there's more weight given to the choices you make in your character and their proficiencies -- if you didn't get good at it, you're bad at it. Makes sense to me. And it being worse at high levels rewards those choices and minimizes horrific penalties early in the game for new, developing characters.

[Kurald Galain]

I keep reading people mention the D&D system is based on bad math. But no one clarifies or supports the statement. Is it true? If so, how?

The main issue is that the system relies on very small static modifiers (in the +1 to +3 range) and a huge random spread on the die (+1 to +20, since it's 1d20). This results in a resolution system that's extremely random, where character skill matters relatively little, and where it happens frequently that a skilled character will randomly lose to a rookie. Basically, the system never allows your character to become good at anything.

Whether or not you like that is a matter of taste, of course. Some people love it that a high-level ranger can still be challenged by climbing a tree (since he has a substantial chance to fail at climbing it), whereas other people either think that this is silly.

[Sartharina]

Meh... the math is no worse than any Percentile-based system.

[charcoalninja]

The main issue is that the system relies on very small static modifiers (in the +1 to +3 range) and a huge random spread on the die (+1 to +20, since it's 1d20). This results in a resolution system that's extremely random, where character skill matters relatively little, and where it happens frequently that a skilled character will randomly lose to a rookie. Basically, the system never allows your character to become good at anything.

Whether or not you like that is a matter of taste, of course. Some people love it that a high-level ranger can still be challenged by climbing a tree (since he has a substantial chance to fail at climbing it), whereas other people either think that this is silly.

This scenario only holds true if you ignore the DM portion if the skill system in that the DM is supposed to set the DC based on how difficult the task is. So climbing a tree may be DC 10 for a peasant, DC 5 for the trained Ranger at low level, an isn't a check at all at high level.

4e had a similar system of Relative DCs. Many people don't like the sliding scale of DM driven DCs, but if the rolls are made according to this scheme, a cliff is easier to climb for the unarmoured monk than it is for the fighter in full plate with gauntlets. Dc 10 for the monk, DC 15 for the fighter.

When the full intent of the system is used it works fine. Though contests are where this underlying math has an issue. As those are directly opposed rolls and the narrow modifiers render things too similar to be overly satisfying.

It IS easy to houserule it to make sense but that's not very useful for discussion.

[Kurald Galain]

This scenario only holds true if you ignore the DM portion if the skill system in that the DM is supposed to set the DC based on how difficult the task is. So climbing a tree may be DC 10 for a peasant, DC 5 for the trained Ranger at low level, an isn't a check at all at high level.

So if two party members both want to climb the same tree, you have to assign them both a different DC because one of them is a trained ranger and the other is not.

That's precisely why the math is bad, yes.

[charcoalninja]

So if two party members both want to climb the same tree, you have to assign them both a different DC because one of them is a trained ranger and the other is not.

That's precisely why the math is bad, yes.

It's a different style yes, but it's a dynamic one that doesn't require tables and tables of object break DCs because steel is slightly harder to punch through than stone.

The math works for players to make hard DCs some of the time with a little luck or help from favourable circumstances and for easy DCs to be made most of the time.

Setting relative DCs doesn't mean the math is bad, it's merely a different approach to skills. Where it breaks down in this case is in contests. A trained wrestler will only have a +2 advantage over an untrained yet equally strong opponent which does indeed mean they'll lose a fair bit of the time.

To me the skill system works fine as is, it's contests that need a bit of refining. It's not perfect, but then again math has never been D&Ds strong suit...

[Merc_Kilsek]

So if two party members both want to climb the same tree, you have to assign them both a different DC because one of them is a trained ranger and the other is not.

That's precisely why the math is bad, yes.

No, it is just *one* way to handle checks. Doesn't make it bad, just makes it not to your taste.

You can set the DC to 10 and both can roll off. A ranger that is skilled will very likely have a higher modifier (say +3 dex and +3 prof) then your common farmer (maybe a +1 if that). But honestly why force a roll for something so simple? Unless something is placing you at risk (say a flash flood and you're trying to escape up the tree for safety) I find such rolls silly.

Personally, checks normal shouldn't be made unless the risk of failure really matters or it is part of the drama of the story being told.

[Kurald Galain]

Personally, checks normal shouldn't be made unless the risk of failure really matters or it is part of the drama of the story being told.

You're missing the point. The issue is not whether a check should be rolled or not; the issue is that if a check is rolled, it gives results that mostly depend on randomness, instead of on character skill.

But this is not inherently bad. For example, it works fine for games like Paranoia or Call of Chtulhu that depend on the PCs randomly failing their tasks all the time (either because it's funny, or because of the inherent fatalism in the setting). Like I said, the 5E system doesn't allow your character to become good at anything; in certain campaign worlds that is to be expected.

[Merc_Kilsek]

You're missing the point. The issue is not whether a check should be rolled or not; the issue is that if a check is rolled, it gives results that mostly depend on randomness, instead of on character skill.

But this is not inherently bad. For example, it works fine for games like Paranoia or Call of Chtulhu that depend on the PCs randomly failing their tasks all the time (either because it's funny, or because of the inherent fatalism in the setting). Like I said, the 5E system doesn't allow your character to become good at anything; in certain campaign worlds that is to be expected.

No, I get it. You want a system that can be pushed towards guarantees (with a randomness playing a smaller part) because a character is trained in it. That is what the DC system is about, sure it a little more up to the people at the table on that number but it works. I like the system being a little more loose in the skill rolls. It allows more freedom to tailor to that tables personal style.

Also, can you give some examples of what you can concerned about?

[Seppo87]

You're missing the point. The issue is not whether a check should be rolled or not; the issue is that if a check is rolled, it gives results that mostly depend on randomness, instead of on character skill.You might reduce this by rolling 3d6 instead.

[Sartharina]

You're missing the point. The issue is not whether a check should be rolled or not; the issue is that if a check is rolled, it gives results that mostly depend on randomness, instead of on character skill.

But this is not inherently bad. For example, it works fine for games like Paranoia or Call of Chtulhu that depend on the PCs randomly failing their tasks all the time (either because it's funny, or because of the inherent fatalism in the setting). Like I said, the 5E system doesn't allow your character to become good at anything; in certain campaign worlds that is to be expected.The only time you roll is when there are factors conspiring against you to allow failure, or when there are factors conspiring in your favor to allow a success. Your own ability, in these cases, gives an edge in overcoming or boosting those factors.

A lot of RPGs have a 50/50 resolution mechanic for succeeding on a task that isn't a guaranteed success. Rolls are NEVER to be used for routine things.

[pwykersotz]

This scenario only holds true if you ignore the DM portion if the skill system in that the DM is supposed to set the DC based on how difficult the task is. So climbing a tree may be DC 10 for a peasant, DC 5 for the trained Ranger at low level, an isn't a check at all at high level.

4e had a similar system of Relative DCs. Many people don't like the sliding scale of DM driven DCs, but if the rolls are made according to this scheme, a cliff is easier to climb for the unarmoured monk than it is for the fighter in full plate with gauntlets. Dc 10 for the monk, DC 15 for the fighter.

When the full intent of the system is used it works fine. Though contests are where this underlying math has an issue. As those are directly opposed rolls and the narrow modifiers render things too similar to be overly satisfying.

It IS easy to houserule it to make sense but that's not very useful for discussion.

See, I agree DM adjudication is key, but I disagree that the DC's should be altered based on level. I think that undermines the concept of the bounded accuracy. The whole idea is that nearly impossible checks are unreliable, even for a grand master of the art. If you start making the standard flexible based on class and level, you may as well bring back class skills and skill points.

[Feldarove]

You might reduce this by rolling 3d6 instead.


Get this 3d6 guy outta here!!!

JK :smallyuk:


Kurald Galain you are missing the point or not understanding why a random number generator is used in dungeons and dragons (tabletop rpgs).


I am guessing Merc_Kilsek has it pegged what you are seeking, but the game is meant to have a chance for success (or failure) by most skill levels. Even with out sliding the DC scales, I dont think the small margins are all that crazy. You are playing an adventurer who is more than just a 1 (skill) trick pony. You are mostly adept at fighting, or casting spells....or whatever class features you have. Skills are just a small part of the adventurer package. In your travels/training, you have possibly become more skillful at a few things, making you better at them than the average person. But you aren't necessarily crazy better. And if you do want to be a lot better at a skill, play a rogue...who has expertise. But when it comes to there being chances of failure that results in negative consequences, or if other factors are involved, there is still that chance of failure for even the most adept character.

I'll give you a real life example. I have a friend who rock climbs and trains 3 times per week. He also does a lot of tree climbing for work.
I am an office worker who goes to the gym and works out regularly.
We are both in decent shape, though I am a much heavier build (70 lbs heavier).
We both signed up for this team CrossFit challenge for charity event. You had to do a bunch of strenuous activities and towards the end, there was a rope you had to climb and ring a bell at a top. We oddly both reached the rope at the same time in the event, and I actually climbed it faster, despite the fact that I never climb anything in real life...at all...I don't even like ladders. So despite the fact that he is more or less an expert climber and I am a rookie, during the crunch, I was able to climb something better than him. Maybe his hands were sweatier, maybe he was more out of breath, maybe his rope had more sweat from previous climbers. Random factors....who knows?

[MadBear]

I don't mind the randomness at all. It makes for a more dynamic story usually.

Like others have said, climbing a tree for funsies, I'll give that to you no check.

Climbing it to escape a flood where you don't have you're full concentration a different story.

Let's take a look at it more closely.

Ranger trained in climbing (+2 proficiency, +2 dex)

Farmer bob (+1 dex)

farmer bob will pass the check 60% of the time

the ranger at low level will pass the check 75% of the time. This will improve of course so that by +6 he'll pass it 90% of the time (assuming he doesn't raise his dex ever).

I prefer this to the 3.0/PF where you could end up with ridiculous checks that you might as well not even bother rolling ever. (some people could push bluff/diplomacy to the 20-30's range by level 1-3.

It also fits the world better. A cleric who spends some time training for battle and the rest praying isn't going to be better the the average guy at climbing (maybe worse if in heavy battle armor). Granted the cleric will probably have a contingency plan with a spell.

I wouldn't call it bad math. I'd just call it different from what some people prefer. It's bad in the same way shadow run/Lotfr/Vampire Requiem are bad, in that dice don't perfectly represent reality.

[akaddk]

Yeup, D&D 5e is poorly made and nobody should ever play it. In fact, civilisation will end if it ever becomes popular.

[Seppo87]

I'll give you a real life example. I have a friend who rock climbs and trains 3 times per week. He also does a lot of tree climbing for work.
I am an office worker who goes to the gym and works out regularly.
We are both in decent shape, though I am a much heavier build (70 lbs heavier).
We both signed up for this team CrossFit challenge for charity event. You had to do a bunch of strenuous activities and towards the end, there was a rope you had to climb and ring a bell at a top. We oddly both reached the rope at the same time in the event, and I actually climbed it faster, despite the fact that I never climb anything in real life...at all...I don't even like ladders. So despite the fact that he is more or less an expert climber and I am a rookie, during the crunch, I was able to climb something better than him. Maybe his hands were sweatier, maybe he was more out of breath, maybe his rope had more sweat from previous climbers. Random factors....who knows?
Your friend is not a dnd hero, however. I'll give you a different example.
If you were a complete beginner at Guitar Hero and tried to beat a person who's played enough to beat Expert mode, you'll lose.
If that person challenged another guy who's skill level is high enough to achieve 5 stars on every song, the better player will always win.
If the guy who barely gets 5 stars on everything challenged me, he would lose everytime.
If I challenged my other friend who's better than me but not pro, I will always lose.
If that guy challenged a pro player, he will lose.
If the pro challenged the champion, he will lose no matter what.

I can guarantee, it's impossible to win against a far better player. Variance only matters when the expected performance is close enough. Otherwise it is irrelevant.

The discrepancy between the first guy and the world champion should be correctly represented, using a d20, by around 120-150 points of difference

now THIS is realistic

source: first hand experience with tournaments, top players etc

If you're not familiar with Guitar Hero we can make it a soccer challenge, the basic idea does not change.
In the real world, you have less than 0.1% chance at defeating somone significantly better than you at something.

note: I'm not saying realism is good. I'm saying huge differences between skill levels are realistic.

[Sartharina]

Your friend is not a dnd hero, however.Citation needed. D&D heroes are Slightly Gifted People most notably defined by incredible durability and bold proactivity.


I'll give you a different example.
If you were a complete beginner at Guitar Hero and tried to beat a person who's played enough to beat Expert mode, you'll lose.
If that person challenged another guy who's skill level is high enough to achieve 5 stars on every song, the better player will always win.
If the guy who barely gets 5 stars on everything challenged me, he would lose everytime.
If I challenged my other friend who's better than me but not pro, I will always lose.
If that guy challenged a pro player, he will lose.
If the pro challenged the champion, he will lose no matter what.

I can guarantee, it's impossible to win against a far better player. Variance only matters when the expected performance is close enough. Otherwise it is irrelevant.

The discrepancy between the first guy and the world champion should be correctly represented, using a d20, by around 120-150 points of difference

now THIS is realistic

source: first hand experience with tournaments, top players etc

If you're not familiar with Guitar Hero we can make it a soccer challenge, the basic idea does not change.
In the real world, you have less than 0.1% chance at defeating somone significantly better than you at something.Actually, the basic idea does change. Guitar Hero is a tightly-controlled environment. Watching Soccer, I saw most attempts at a goal had... pretty terrible accuracy, actually. D&D wouldn't model the superiority of a pro soccer player based on merely a +1 to a die roll, though, but through multiple factors compounding on each other to amplify the chance of success.

[pwykersotz]

Your friend is not a dnd hero, however. I'll give you a different example.
If you were a complete beginner at Guitar Hero and tried to beat a person who's played enough to beat Expert mode, you'll lose.
If that person challenged another guy who's skill level is high enough to achieve 5 stars on every song, the better player will always win.
If the guy who barely gets 5 stars on everything challenged me, he would lose everytime.
If I challenged my other friend who's better than me but not pro, I will always lose.
If that guy challenged a pro player, he will lose.
If the pro challenged the champion, he will lose no matter what.

I can guarantee, it's impossible to win against a far better player. Variance only matters when the expected performance is close enough. Otherwise it is irrelevant.

The discrepancy between the first guy and the world champion should be correctly represented, using a d20, by around 120-150 points of difference

now THIS is realistic

source: first hand experience with tournaments, top players etc

If you're not familiar with Guitar Hero we can make it a soccer challenge, the basic idea does not change.
In the real world, you have less than 0.1% chance at defeating somone significantly better than you at something.

note: I'm not saying realism is good. I'm saying huge differences between skill levels are realistic.

I'm not sure your example is solid. Guitar Hero involves a lot of memorization. Memorization isn't accounted for in the skill system. If you do this with a song neither person has ever played, the example would be closer to the D&D skill system. And while I haven't done it with guitar hero, I've beaten my friend who is much better at DDR than me (so very much better) several times on brand new songs.

[MadBear]

Your friend is not a dnd hero, however. I'll give you a different example.
If you were a complete beginner at Guitar Hero and tried to beat a person who's played enough to beat Expert mode, you'll lose.
If that person challenged another guy who's skill level is high enough to achieve 5 stars on every song, the better player will always win.
If the guy who barely gets 5 stars on everything challenged me, he would lose everytime.
If I challenged my other friend who's better than me but not pro, I will always lose.
If that guy challenged a pro player, he will lose.
If the pro challenged the champion, he will lose no matter what.

I can guarantee, it's impossible to win against a far better player. Variance only matters when the expected performance is close enough. Otherwise it is irrelevant.

The discrepancy between the first guy and the world champion should be correctly represented, using a d20, by around 120-150 points of difference

now THIS is realistic

source: first hand experience with tournaments, top players etc

If you're not familiar with Guitar Hero we can make it a soccer challenge, the basic idea does not change.
In the real world, you have less than 0.1% chance at defeating somone significantly better than you at something.

note: I'm not saying realism is good. I'm saying huge differences between skill levels are realistic.

there are good examples on both sides.

This is why dice will never fully represent world events (fictional or otherwise).

To present a counter argument anyways...

Let's take the skill (guitar hero), and say it's dex based.

If you're the world master of guitar hero you're probably gonna be a rogue because they're good at focusing on a particular thing, in this case the 2 skills (guitar hero) and (dining alone), and you'll probably be high level. That's gonna be a +12 proficiency bonus and a +5 dex bonus.

Now I'm not great at math, but I know that odds for a average joe shmoe beating you have got to be hilariously low (you probably auto-succeed on a 4+, and still have a 85% chance on a roll of a 1.).

Does this perfectly match reality? no. But I'd say it sounds about right.

and that small % of the time you lose could be as simple as: missing button, sabotage, broken guitar, etc.

[Kurald Galain]

Citation needed. D&D heroes are Slightly Gifted People most notably defined by incredible durability and bold proactivity.

Well, that right there is the issue. Some people want to play epic fantasy heroes, and other people want to play characters who are only slightly gifted. 5E only supports the latter.

[Fralex]

I think there's gonna be a module that does a skill ranks/skill points system, which might appeal more to some who don't like the randomness.
Or you could do what I plan to do, and make the concept of expertise not exclusive to rogues and I think bards? If a character would gain proficiency in a skill he is already proficient in, he gains expertise with that skill. That keeps it simple while allowing people to be REALLY good at certain things at higher levels.

[Merc_Kilsek]

Well, that right there is the issue. Some people want to play epic fantasy heroes, and other people want to play characters who are only slightly gifted. 5E only supports the latter.

Bit snarky/snide there. Epic is what you make of it - not the rules/system.

There has been some solid suggestions here from other people on how you can tailor a roll to fit your idea of what epic is.

[Breltar]

Well, that right there is the issue. Some people want to play epic fantasy heroes, and other people want to play characters who are only slightly gifted. 5E only supports the latter.

Yup, it is a different game than 4E even though it shares the same title. 4E starts you out as almost epic, whereas 5E and some of the earlier games start out as a slightly gifted person who is just starting out.

I like the element of danger and so do my players. They got tired of 4E very fast so we are giving this one a shot, so far, so good.


If you play D&D just for rules and math then honestly it will drive you nuts after a while.

[Lokiare]

The problem here is that the only way you can tell broken math is by comparing the maths outcomes to the stated design goals. For instance if the design goals were to make an extremely swingy, deadly game that mostly relied on DM interpretations and casters being weak at low levels and powerful at high levels and non casters beng average throughout then 5e's math would be perfect.

That wasn't the design goals though the design goals were to cater to each of the major play styles. So by that measure the math outcomes fail to meet expectations so 5e has bad math.

[MadBear]

Well, that right there is the issue. Some people want to play epic fantasy heroes, and other people want to play characters who are only slightly gifted. 5E only supports the latter.

I wouldn't say that's entirely true across the board. for skills, maybe yes, but overall no.

Mainly, that I wouldn't call someone who with no magical weapons/armor/items etc. that can take blows from giants/dragons/other big nasties, and keep on trucking with minor (ok maybe not always minor) injuries I'd say that's pretty epic. Blows that by the way would kill Joe the farmer in 1 hit.

If you mainly mean that it isn't as over the top as 3.5/PF, then ok maybe it's going in that direction, but only when you start including in all the splat books.

If we only went by 3.5 Players handbook the power differential is not so huge. (again, I'll grant you skills).

But as a GM, I'm excited that I can have goblins/kobolds/orcs be a threat past low level. Albeit an easily dispatched threat, but a threat nonetheless. I was always tired in PF trying to make lower CR enemies relevant, and now they are.

Talking to my players, They're looking forward to the fact that Mr. Orc can hit them for damage, but they'll still be killing them in droves, meanwhile the BBEG can have meaningful henchmen.

[MadBear]

The problem here is that the only way you can tell broken math is by comparing the maths outcomes to the stated design goals. For instance if the design goals were to make an extremely swingy, deadly game that mostly relied on DM interpretations and casters being weak at low levels and powerful at high levels and non casters beng average throughout then 5e's math would be perfect.

That wasn't the design goals though the design goals were to cater to each of the major play styles. So by that measure the math outcomes fail to meet expectations so 5e has bad math.

I'd say they did just fine.

Even at high levels, Casters get to be Gods 2-3 times per day and that's it. After that they're using their lower level spells. I'd say it fits perfectly. So in that regards they've succeeded in their expectations and therefore good math right?

[Lokiare]

I wouldn't say that's entirely true across the board. for skills, maybe yes, but overall no.

Mainly, that I wouldn't call someone who with no magical weapons/armor/items etc. that can take blows from giants/dragons/other big nasties, and keep on trucking with minor (ok maybe not always minor) injuries I'd say that's pretty epic. Blows that by the way would kill Joe the farmer in 1 hit.

If you mainly mean that it isn't as over the top as 3.5/PF, then ok maybe it's going in that direction, but only when you start including in all the splat books.

If we only went by 3.5 Players handbook the power differential is not so huge. (again, I'll grant you skills).

But as a GM, I'm excited that I can have goblins/kobolds/orcs be a threat past low level. Albeit an easily dispatched threat, but a threat nonetheless. I was always tired in PF trying to make lower CR enemies relevant, and now they are.

Talking to my players, They're looking forward to the fact that Mr. Orc can hit them for damage, but they'll still be killing them in droves, meanwhile the BBEG can have meaningful henchmen.

Actually beyond a few levels you won't be able to threaten your players with low level monsters because you either can't use them in the numbers you need, by the guidelines or you risk an almost assured tpk because of the exponential number of attacks the party will take each round. So no you actually won't get any more use out of them than any other edition.

[Kurald Galain]

I wouldn't say that's entirely true across the board. for skills, maybe yes, but overall no.

Considering I was talking about skills, it looks like we're agreed then.

I find it hilarious that the universe's best rogue in 5E is the equivalent of a pretty decent Guitar Hero player IRL. That's very epic, yes :smallbiggrin:

[MadBear]

Considering I was talking about skills, it looks like we're agreed then.

I find it hilarious that the universe's best rogue in 5E is the equivalent of a pretty decent Guitar Hero player IRL. That's very epic, yes :smallbiggrin:

I agreed with someone on the internet, does this mean we win? :smallbiggrin:

also, I forgot about reliable talent. So at 11th level your guitar hero skill will be 23 minimum. That means if you're facing the average town newb (someone with base proficiency) they'll have the +2 and maybe, +1 dex. They'll need a 20 just to tie you (assuming you roll 9 or lower).

[Sartharina]

Well, that right there is the issue. Some people want to play epic fantasy heroes, and other people want to play characters who are only slightly gifted. 5E only supports the latter.

Epic fantasy heroes are only slightly gifted. What makes them awesome is the amazing circumstances they proactively hunt. And crazy-high endurance and durability (Caused by Hit Points and nobody wanting to go through the trouble of modeling realistic fatigue).

[Lokiare]

Epic fantasy heroes are only slightly gifted. What makes them awesome is the amazing circumstances they proactively hunt. And crazy-high endurance and durability (Caused by Hit Points and nobody wanting to go through the trouble of modeling realistic fatigue).

I use the word 'mythic' instead of 'epic' it conveys that you want your character to start by accomplishing the things of Hercules and Cuchulain (I hope I spelled that right). You are already mythic when you start out in 4e. Once per day you can drop a nova attack that can turn the tide of an entire battle and do things at 2nd level that are super human like redirect rivers or cut mountains in half. Its simply one play style that is not well supported by 5E.

[Lokiare]

Actually beyond a few levels you won't be able to threaten your players with low level monsters because you either can't use them in the numbers you need, by the guidelines or you risk an almost assured tpk because of the exponential number of attacks the party will take each round. So no you actually won't get any more use out of them than any other edition.

Just a follow up if you have 7 goblins fighting 5 characters each of which can drop a total of 4 goblins each round you end up with (slanted in the parties favor):



Round
Attacks made by Goblins
# Goblins Left


1
3
4


2
3
0



Now what if we up that to 15 Goblins:



Round
Attacks made by Goblins
# Goblins Left


1
11
11


2
18
7


3
21
4


4
21
0



Suddenly the party takes an exponentially larger number of attacks which due to critical hits (one per 20 so at least one in the second example) means they can be TPK'd much easier. Now if the party doesn't get initiative and mange to kill of many goblins each round the numbers go much higher.

Edit: We doubled the goblins and got 7x the number of attacks than our previous example.

[Sartharina]

Just a follow up if you have 7 goblins fighting 5 characters each of which can drop a total of 4 goblins each round you end up with (slanted in the parties favor):



Round
Attacks made by Goblins
# Goblins Left


1
3
4


2
3
0



Now what if we up that to 15 Goblins:



Round
Attacks made by Goblins
# Goblins Left


1
11
11


2
18
7


3
21
4


4
21
0



Suddenly the party takes an exponentially larger number of attacks which due to critical hits (one per 20 so at least one in the second example) means they can be TPK'd much easier. Now if the party doesn't get initiative and mange to kill of many goblins each round the numbers go much higher.

Edit: We doubled the goblins and got 7x the number of attacks than our previous example.

If you clump them all together, yes. But that's not what an encounter is. An encounter can have several individual combat sections.

Sure, there are some times you just add a few more - but doubling the size of an encounter isn't necessarily adding twice as many goblins to a room - it's adding another room with the same number of goblins as the first without a chance to Short Rest between them.

[Envyus]

My 5e group tends to take down multiple groups of monsters with out even having a short rest. Doing so only when we are weakened. Lokiare I highly doubt you have actully played the game combined with several faulty assumptions you have made your points are largely invalid.

[obryn]

The main issue is that the system relies on very small static modifiers (in the +1 to +3 range) and a huge random spread on the die (+1 to +20, since it's 1d20). This results in a resolution system that's extremely random, where character skill matters relatively little, and where it happens frequently that a skilled character will randomly lose to a rookie. Basically, the system never allows your character to become good at anything.

Whether or not you like that is a matter of taste, of course. Some people love it that a high-level ranger can still be challenged by climbing a tree (since he has a substantial chance to fail at climbing it), whereas other people either think that this is silly.
This is missing the forest for the trees, as I mentioned in another thread. It's the reverse side of the "bad saving throw" issue (which I actually do think is an issue).

Basically - There's no such thing as an orthodox skill check in 5e. Everything is an attribute check, possibly with a bonus. Going back to Climbing, a Ranger with a 16 Strength, proficient in Athletics will have a +5 to Climbing checks, which is more than enough to be significant - and very noticeable in practice compared to the non-proficient, 8 Strength Wizard.

The Proficiency Bonus is important, but it shares the spotlight with your stats. If you focus only on the +2 Proficiency modifier, you're only seeing half the picture.

Now! With all that said, I think all the DCs need to be about 5 points lower. :smallbiggrin:

As for saves ... the problems are many-fold, but one of the main reasons they get out of hand is because of the stat modifier's high importance. The issue isn't so much that a Fighter is non-proficient at Wisdom saves; it's that and the fact that they have no other reason to improve their Wisdom stat, causing an effective double penalty. And also making the "proficient at a saving throw" feat an effective tax for Fighters.

[Tehnar]

Off the top of my head:

1) If a DM calls for a check with little or no effect on a failure, everyone will roll for that. If he doesn't call for many of those checks, there will be no noticeable differences between characters who invested resources into that check and those who didn't. Thus the mechanics don't facilitate roleplay. Playing a intelligent fighter (and investing ability scores in intelligence) will not be noticeably different then playing a fighter that did not invest into intelligence, at intelligence related stuff.

2) Since the effect of investing resources translates poorly into your experience, most players will choose to max their primary stat as soon as possible, since at least that will get a lot of use. This will lead to samey characters (all wizards will max INT etc..). Feats might change that, but I am betting there will only be 1 critical feat for a build. In that case everyone who needs a feat for their build to function will be playing a variant human.

3) Advantaged/Disadvantage is a good idea with a bad execution. They don't stack so you will see things like a archer attacking at long range has the same chance to hit as the same archer attacking at long range, prone, restrained, exhausted, in dim light against a enemy that frightens him.


@Obryn: The example you gave, a 6 point difference, will be relevant 1 time out of 3. Which is the best you can have at level 1. Even at level 20, where you can have a difference of 12 (between the best possible character and the worst possible character) it will only make a difference ~2/3 of the time due to bound math. If you decrease the DC's by 5 you are only taking away the only bonus a highly trained character has, having a shot at DC 20+

[obryn]

@Obryn: The example you gave, a 6 point difference, will be relevant 1 time out of 3. Which is the best you can have at level 1. Even at level 20, where you can have a difference of 12 (between the best possible character and the worst possible character) it will only make a difference ~2/3 of the time due to bound math. If you decrease the DC's by 5 you are only taking away the only bonus a highly trained character has, having a shot at DC 20+
I think this illustrates the weakness of the "only X rolls in Y" approach to bonuses. Over time, and with multiple occurrences over a career, it will be substantial. This is the difference between failing DC 10 15% of the time vs. 50% of the time. It's not noticeable on every roll, but that's a heck of a standard in a game where most individual tasks are handled by single throws.

My "reduce by 5" proposal makes "average" rolls impossible to fail for trained/high-stat folks, which seems fair to me. It also makes Very Hard tasks more likely for the upper echelons of ability.

[Theodoxus]

Well, that right there is the issue. Some people want to play epic fantasy heroes, and other people want to play characters who are only slightly gifted. 5E only supports the latter.

So don't play? There's nothing that's twisting your arm forcing you to adopt 5E. Stick with the system that allows for epic heroes. I don't understand the wailing and gnashing of teeth.

[Sartharina]

So don't play? There's nothing that's twisting your arm forcing you to adopt 5E. Stick with the system that allows for epic heroes. I don't understand the wailing and gnashing of teeth.
They want an edition of D&D that plays like the D&D they want to play.

[GPuzzle]

I use the word 'mythic' instead of 'epic' it conveys that you want your character to start by accomplishing the things of Hercules and Cuchulain (I hope I spelled that right). You are already mythic when you start out in 4e. Once per day you can drop a nova attack that can turn the tide of an entire battle and do things at 2nd level that are super human like redirect rivers or cut mountains in half. Its simply one play style that is not well supported by 5E.

Wait, what? I get the whole "redirect the tide of a battle" with dailies (Sleep, Lamb to Slaughter, Form of Winter's Sentinel, Silent Malediction)... But at higher levels, even if you use them at the start of round, it ain't a "I win" button unless it's Sleep/that Wizard Daily that left enemies' Helpless and you're an Orbizard|Wrathvoker/Flame of Hope with Symbol of the Heretic.

And redirecting rivers/cutting mountains in half? At level 2, a Wizard gains Shield.

[Sartharina]

And redirecting rivers/cutting mountains in half? At level 2, a Wizard gains Shield.
And that's something I'm confused about as well - The 2nd level utility powers aren't the world-changing things he's treating them as. Certainly nothing dramatic - heck, a character can't even jump more than 20 feet without heavy, heavy optimization in that skill, though a trained person can jump 5 more feet than an untrained one.

[GPuzzle]

At level 22, a Fighter is rolling twice on his MBAs and at-wills with his utility (every encounter), a Warlord is granting everyone a BA as a minor (once per day), a Ranger is gaining +Wis to damage...

At level 26, the most devastating utility I saw is in a Tiefling-only ED, but most aren't "I break the game".

Yes, 4e expects you to be awesome and powerful enough to fight monsters which are 4-5 levels ahead, but they also make these monsters equally as powerful.

Unless you're Illusion of Hope. That combo is nasty.

[Pex]

So don't play? There's nothing that's twisting your arm forcing you to adopt 5E. Stick with the system that allows for epic heroes. I don't understand the wailing and gnashing of teeth.

So the only people who should be permitted to talk about 5E are those who love it with a passion and have no dislikes about it at all? With 5E's intentions to lure back players who abandoned D&D failing at the task, those who were failed should be forbidden to discuss why 5E failed to lure them back?

[Knaight]

This scenario only holds true if you ignore the DM portion if the skill system in that the DM is supposed to set the DC based on how difficult the task is. So climbing a tree may be DC 10 for a peasant, DC 5 for the trained Ranger at low level, an isn't a check at all at high level.

4e had a similar system of Relative DCs. Many people don't like the sliding scale of DM driven DCs, but if the rolls are made according to this scheme, a cliff is easier to climb for the unarmoured monk than it is for the fighter in full plate with gauntlets. Dc 10 for the monk, DC 15 for the fighter.

Employing both variable DCs for difficulty and variable skill levels is generally pretty sloppy design with too many parts. The monk-fighter example would be an exception, in that it actually involves assigning a different DC for two different tasks (climbing a tree unarmored, climbing a tree in armor), otherwise changing the DC for the character basically undermines the characters actual stats - they become less significant than the DM's vision of the character which dictates how they assign DCs.

Moreover, the rules on assigning DCs say to look at the task. It doesn't say to look at the task and the character and decide how hard it is for them. It's supposed to be somewhat objective. The use of the skills and the existence of penalties also reinforces this, as that's consistent with a standardized difficulty mechanic.


Epic fantasy heroes are only slightly gifted. What makes them awesome is the amazing circumstances they proactively hunt. And crazy-high endurance and durability (Caused by Hit Points and nobody wanting to go through the trouble of modeling realistic fatigue).
Epic fantasy heroes are frequently way more than slightly gifted. The 5e scale essentially runs from about -2 to 11, with -2 for someone who absolutely sucks at something (an ability score of 5, no proficiency) 0 represents an average person, and 11 represents an extremely capable person (an ability score of 20, +6 proficiency. There's also being decent, which comes to about +5 (+3 attribute, +2 proficiencey). The odds work out against the difficulties as:


SkillDC 10DC 15DC 20DC 25
-245%20%0%0%
055%30%5%0%
580%55%30%5%
11100%85%60%35%


That's really not that huge a change between the skill levels. It's substantial, but it's pretty small compared to what I'd expect for a trained professional and a complete novice. D&D is specifically meant for dungeon crawling where situations are generally chaotic, so some compression of skill makes sense relative to a more controlled environment. Still, look at DC 15 - someone completely untrained has a 30% chance of something moderately difficult, the absolute best is only an 85%. That's not preventing exaggerated heroic types, that's preventing people who are just well trained.

That said, skills seem pretty easy to fix. Double proficiency is used in other places, adding double proficiency to skill checks opens things up a bit. It changes decent to +7 and very good to +17, and it makes being trained more relevant than the attribute the whole time, which makes plenty of sense. Even with the theoretical maximum +17, there's still a decent failure chance for the highest two difficulties. It works out.

[Sartharina]

The math's no worse than percentile-based systems, where chance of success tends to range from 25-30% at low levels to 75% or so at higher ones... at least in my experience.

[Knaight]

The math's no worse than percentile-based systems, where chance of success tends to range from 25-30% at low levels to 75% or so at higher ones... at least in my experience.

I'd agree with this. I also really dislike percentile systems for a number of reasons, so that doesn't mean much.

[Tehnar]

I think this illustrates the weakness of the "only X rolls in Y" approach to bonuses. Over time, and with multiple occurrences over a career, it will be substantial. This is the difference between failing DC 10 15% of the time vs. 50% of the time. It's not noticeable on every roll, but that's a heck of a standard in a game where most individual tasks are handled by single throws.

The question is how often will you notice the ability you invested in real time. If it happens every 4 or 5 sessions would that even be noticeable? Even at playing once per week, that is a month of real time when that investment makes a difference. A player who has invested resources into making that check would feel frustrated.

Lets say a DM calls for a particular check 4 times per session, and you have characters with various degrees of proficiency in that check (from -1 to +8 lets say). Would a outside observer, who only knows if a particular character passed or failed a check, be able to accurately gauge the characters capabilities?



The math's no worse than percentile-based systems, where chance of success tends to range from 25-30% at low levels to 75% or so at higher ones... at least in my experience.

That is true...however I don't know of any percentile based system that is espoused for having solid or good math. Even the best known percentile based system, Dark Heresy, is carried by its setting and not its mechanics.

[Chaosvii7]

So the only people who should be permitted to talk about 5E are those who love it with a passion and have no dislikes about it at all? With 5E's intentions to lure back players who abandoned D&D failing at the task, those who were failed should be forbidden to discuss why 5E failed to lure them back?

That's not what Theo said. Like, at all.

There is literally no mention of those who dislike or hate 5e needing to be ostracized for their choice. He just said that if you're not interested in the game then you don't have to play it. Feel free to talk about what you do and don't like about the game, but at the very least I think everybody should be constructive about it. Upfront problems with 5e that you think cannot be fixed, houserules or no, should be brought to the attention of Wizards. It's all about respect. Nobody's doling it out so nobody needs to get defensive about what they do and don't like, so long as everybody is willing to listen to reason. If you think Wizards has or will fail you with this edition then you can tell us, but again, I think that's something that's worth bringing to the attention of people with more creative authority than us.

If you want epic heroes like Lokiare does in 5e, then tell us how you'd do it, and consider making houserules for it. And then consider sharing those houserules, preferably over a stable internet connection.

[Seppo87]

The math's no worse than percentile-based systems, where chance of success tends to range from 25-30% at low levels to 75% or so at higher ones... at least in my experience.And how is the bad math of other systems saving D&D 5E from supposedly having bad math as well?
You know, just because halflings are small it does not make dwarves any more likely to reach human sized shelves.


He just said that if you're not interested in the game then you don't have to play it.
This is, like, the most useless piece of information ever. It's painfully obvious. Why would anyone even take the time to state something like this, and how is this related to critiques, anyway? It's not even an answer.

"hey, X is flawed. Let's discuss X's flaws"
"you can decide to not use X"

not. related.

[Chaosvii7]

This is, like, the most useless piece of information ever. It's painfully obvious. Why would anyone even take the time to state something like this, and how is this related to critiques, anyway? It's not even an answer.

It's related to critiques because anybody who actually wants to consider themselves an authority on the matter of the relative balance of this game should probably play at least one session of it before they draw wild and fanciful conclusions about every aspect of it, and there's nothing fair about judging something without giving it a try. If it's not your cup of tea, you don't have to drink it. But you'll never know if you don't try.

So no, it isn't useless to me, because I'm not going to subject myself to people trying to tell me that something I like is founded on "Bad math" that have no relative experience with it.

Mind you, I DO listen to Lokiare because I know he has experience with the playtest material, I just wish that when the PHB comes out he'll take an active stance about it if there are aspects of this game that bother him so much.

[Seppo87]

It's related to critiques because anybody who actually wants to consider themselves an authority on the matter of the relative balance of this game should probably play at least one session of it before they draw wild and fanciful conclusions about every aspect of it, and there's nothing fair about judging something without giving it a try. If it's not your cup of tea, you don't have to drink it. But you'll never know if you don't try.
This is an entirely different argument. You're mixing things up.

"you need to know X to talk about it"

is something I never addressed

Such an argument can be valid... as long as it's supported with proof that the other person is overlooking certain aspects of X due to his ignorance, obviously

However, it has nothing to do with

"since you don't like X I'll remind you that you're not forced to use X"

which is what I addressed.

It is illogical, useless, and provides no information whatsoever.

More importantly, it sounds much like "I don't want to hear your critics, go away" as it is often used in such fashion.

[Chaosvii7]

"hey, X is flawed. Let's discuss X's flaws"
"you can decide to not use X"

not. related.

I've typed up a storm, I'm sending to you in PM form so we can continue the discussion on that there.

[Sartharina]

And how is the bad math of other systems saving D&D 5E from supposedly having bad math as well?
You know, just because halflings are small it does not make dwarves any more likely to reach human sized shelves.
If D&D Next has bad math, then there are NO systems with "Good Math" - the percentiles for any task that needs dice resolution are almost always in the 25-75% range.

[Tehnar]

That's not what Theo said. Like, at all.

There is literally no mention of those who dislike or hate 5e needing to be ostracized for their choice. He just said that if you're not interested in the game then you don't have to play it. Feel free to talk about what you do and don't like about the game, but at the very least I think everybody should be constructive about it. Upfront problems with 5e that you think cannot be fixed, houserules or no, should be brought to the attention of Wizards. It's all about respect. Nobody's doling it out so nobody needs to get defensive about what they do and don't like, so long as everybody is willing to listen to reason. If you think Wizards has or will fail you with this edition then you can tell us, but again, I think that's something that's worth bringing to the attention of people with more creative authority than us.

If you want epic heroes like Lokiare does in 5e, then tell us how you'd do it, and consider making houserules for it. And then consider sharing those houserules, preferably over a stable internet connection.

I am bringing up 5e's flaws so people will see that it is a product that has little thought put in it. It is a low quality, design by comity set of rules that brings no innovation. It actually regresses on things that have been learned in the years people have been playing TTRPG's.

Now if it was some minor company entering the market with this ruleset I would not care. But this has DnD stamped all over it, it is the flagship product for the entire TTRPG market. It will set a standard other game companies will try to match. As of now that standard is way too low. If 5e sells well, with this rule quality, then other companies won't need to innovate and improve their products. Instead of evolution of our hobby, we will have stagnation.

I care about TTRPG's. I want them to have the best possible quality, and for designer to come up with new mechanics, new ways of playing that drive the hobby forward. Sadly, 5e regresses. I think it would be for the best if 5e crashed and burn as soon as possible. It would send a clear message that poor quality is not tolerated, and that designers should step up their game.

As for giving constructive ideas...that time has passed. We had a playtest (or design by comity) and I gave feedback then. Now that the PHB has finished printing, there is no more point. The basic resolution mechanic is bad and no amount of houserules or erratas will change that.

[Kurald Galain]

If D&D Next has bad math, then there are NO systems with "Good Math" - the percentiles for any task that needs dice resolution are almost always in the 25-75% range.

There are clearly systems that you are not familiar with :smallamused:

[Seppo87]

If D&D Next has bad math, then there are NO systems with "Good Math" - the percentiles for any task that needs dice resolution are almost always in the 25-75% range.
Which is not impossible depending on the criteria adopted.

Of course the ability to correctly represent an increasing chance of success can't be the only parameter used to define how good a system's math is.

However, it is reasonable to assume that, for some people, it is a valid requirement, without which the system does not respond well to certain situations, making it inadequate to represent them.
This is why they say it's flawed.

Now, even if 5E is not the only system that fails at representing correctly this kind of situation, this does not make such a design choice less adequate.
It all boils down to what you want to prioritize. Anyway, not giving any importance to correctly emulating differences in abilities between individuals is probably a much more extreme choice than its opposite.
It's just natural to expect things to work in a certain way.
Bounded accuracy while surely has its merits as a design choice, as a matter of fact is counter intuitive and unnatural, regardless of one's opinion about the importance of this aspect of simulation.

Also, it is not true that there are no systems able to decently do this.
3.5 for example has a skill range that goes from -2 to +35, heavily differentiating a novice from a pro.

note: I'm not saying 3.5 is a better system. Its math is also flawed, for other reasons.
My point is that 3.5 does a better job at representing a certain existing aspect of reality

[Sartharina]

There are clearly systems that you are not familiar with :smallamused:Name them.


I am bringing up 5e's flaws so people will see that it is a product that has little thought put in it. It is a low quality, design by comity set of rules that brings no innovation. It actually regresses on things that have been learned in the years people have been playing TTRPG's.

Now if it was some minor company entering the market with this ruleset I would not care. But this has DnD stamped all over it, it is the flagship product for the entire TTRPG market. It will set a standard other game companies will try to match. As of now that standard is way too low. If 5e sells well, with this rule quality, then other companies won't need to innovate and improve their products. Instead of evolution of our hobby, we will have stagnation.

I care about TTRPG's. I want them to have the best possible quality, and for designer to come up with new mechanics, new ways of playing that drive the hobby forward. Sadly, 5e regresses. I think it would be for the best if 5e crashed and burn as soon as possible. It would send a clear message that poor quality is not tolerated, and that designers should step up their game.

As for giving constructive ideas...that time has passed. We had a playtest (or design by comity) and I gave feedback then. Now that the PHB has finished printing, there is no more point. The basic resolution mechanic is bad and no amount of houserules or erratas will change that.

Ironic. I've found the game to almost be the opposite of how you describe it. Except maybe where you see other games progressing, I see, "If that's moving up, then I'm moving out."

[Kurald Galain]

Name them.

Really now. Over the course of this thread, you started with "the math in all percentile-based RPG systems is just as bad as in 5E" and ended up with "the math in every RPG system ever is just as bad as in 5E". There's a pretty obvious difference between those statements :smallbiggrin:

[Sartharina]

Really now. Over the course of this thread, you started with "the math in all percentile-based RPG systems is just as bad as in 5E" and ended up with "the math in every RPG system ever is just as bad as in 5E". There's a pretty obvious difference between those statements :smallbiggrin:Percentile came to mind first because it's the most blatant, and several are popular for ease of use.
Frankly, I'm more a fan of scaling die and dicepool systems because of ease of use and decent scalability.

[obryn]

Percentile came to mind first because it's the most blatant, and several are popular for ease of use.
Frankly, I'm more a fan of scaling die and dicepool systems because of ease of use and decent scalability.
"Better math" has never been a selling point of dice pool systems. :smallsmile:

[Sartharina]

"Better math" has never been a selling point of dice pool systems. :smallsmile:

I probably misused the term Dicepool, and should have emphasized the Scaling Die part.

[Tehnar]

Ironic. I've found the game to almost be the opposite of how you describe it. Except maybe where you see other games progressing, I see, "If that's moving up, then I'm moving out."

I would like to hear from you the following:

1) What new mathematically sound mechanics did 5e introduce?
2) How did it innovate the hobby? What new standards did it set?
3) Why, in you opinion, is it better then older/other systems?

[Sartharina]

I would like to hear from you the following:

1) What new mathematically sound mechanics did 5e introduce?Advantage/Disadvantage, and bounded accuracy. They make running the game a lot simpler, don't cause people to outlevel the world stupidly fast, and give a strong blend of power and world versatility.

2) How did it innovate the hobby? What new standards did it set?It preserves the Dungeons & Dragons I loved from TSR, accomodates the older playstyle, and has brought in new developments that fit with said older style while removing frustrations in a manner that didn't break the game as obscenely as 3e's attempts did.

3) Why, in you opinion, is it better then older/other systems?D&D 5e lacks the dead levels of the first three editions, has more clear and consistent mechanics over the first two editions, provides the framework for resolution without needing to rely on the explicit and rigid powers of the 4th edition, lacks the obscene power difference that plagued the third edition, gets off the content-obsoleting treadmill of the previous two editions, and doesn't have characters outgrow the narrative. And, unlike 4e (Which the overall package feels kinda like to me), it doesn't diverge from the more lightweight D&D I enjoyed playing... with friends that never realized the 80s were more than 20 years ago.

[Morty]

"Better math" has never been a selling point of dice pool systems. :smallsmile:

The New World of Darkness has always been perfectly functional for me, especially with the new rules introduced in the God-Machine and Strix Chronicles. Of course, it's a different kind of system than D&D. The new Exalted team seems to know what they're doing with its 3rd edition as well, and their understanding of function over form stands apart from 5e's design considerably. Whether they deliver remains to be seen, but I believe they've done a lot of good errata for the mechanical trainwreck that's Exalted 2e.

[obryn]

Whether they deliver remains to be seen, but I believe they've done a lot of good errata for the mechanical trainwreck that's Exalted 2e.
Yeah, I still remember Greg Stolze's anecdote about working with White Wolf folks. He asked them how the probability changes if you add a die, vs. make the target number smaller. They had no clue. They simply had no idea how the math behind their system worked, and always just went by feel. (This is probably also how you end up with the wretched Botch stuff in early WoD.)

With that said, as long as you check your probabilities and know your math, dice pools can work just fine. You're a bit more limited on fine-grained distinctions, usually, is the thing.

[Tvtyrant]

Well, that right there is the issue. Some people want to play epic fantasy heroes, and other people want to play characters who are only slightly gifted. 5E only supports the latter.

We have a lot of editions, I think one can be devoted to less super-hero types now.

Although I do think the skill bonuses could be bigger, and classes should be better at more things. The +5 and 1/2 level on skills from 4E seems a better one.

[Morty]

Yeah, I still remember Greg Stolze's anecdote about working with White Wolf folks. He asked them how the probability changes if you add a die, vs. make the target number smaller. They had no clue. They simply had no idea how the math behind their system worked, and always just went by feel. (This is probably also how you end up with the wretched Botch stuff in early WoD.)

With that said, as long as you check your probabilities and know your math, dice pools can work just fine. You're a bit more limited on fine-grained distinctions, usually, is the thing.

I don't know about him, but it looks like he worked with the company quite a while ago, in the earliest days of nWoD. And like I said, most of White Wolf - or rather, it's Onyx Path nowadays - had staff turnovers since then. The people in charge of Exalted now were or still are freelancers who started out as players of second edition. I'm trying to find an article in which Holden Shaer, one of the EX3 designers, talks about probabilities in dice pools, and why they're applying the axe to the bloated dice pools of the old Exalted editions, but it eludes me. Their stated design goals for the edition really are a big contrast to D&D Next's designers' obsession with what feels right, is iconic or resembles old editions over what actually works.

In less hypothetical terms, the mechanical crunch behind the nWoD has been steadily improving over the years, and the new rules revisions are of really good quality. So I really do think the "haha White Wolf cannot into math" meme needs to be dropped.

[Millennium]

I've found that within the context of D&D, "bad math" usually means one of two things.

One complaint (which is probably the most common across all editions) was the idea that D&D hasn't ever used bell curves in its core mechanics. Most actions have a simple chance of pass/fail, and to determine success or failure, you roll it on a d% or d20. Each number is equally likely to come up, so a number representing an "average" result comes up just as often as a number representing an "exceptional" result. This rubs some players the wrong way, stating that the dice do not mirror real-life statistics, while others claim that since the fundamental model already doesn't mirror real life, this result manages to bring things back to something closer to verisimilitude than bell curves would model.

The other complaint, which seems to center mostly around 3e and 5e, has to do with the scale of the numbers. In this, the 3e and 5e complaints are mirror images: people complain about 3e's numbers being too large, and 5e's numbers being too small.

[Tholomyes]

I've found that within the context of D&D, "bad math" usually means one of two things.

One complaint (which is probably the most common across all editions) was the idea that D&D hasn't ever used bell curves in its core mechanics. Most actions have a simple chance of pass/fail, and to determine success or failure, you roll it on a d% or d20. Each number is equally likely to come up, so a number representing an "average" result comes up just as often as a number representing an "exceptional" result. This rubs some players the wrong way, stating that the dice do not mirror real-life statistics, while others claim that since the fundamental model already doesn't mirror real life, this result manages to bring things back to something closer to verisimilitude than bell curves would model.

The other complaint, which seems to center mostly around 3e and 5e, has to do with the scale of the numbers. In this, the 3e and 5e complaints are mirror images: people complain about 3e's numbers being too large, and 5e's numbers being too small.I don't necessarily think it has to do with the scale of the numbers, but more how the numbers scale. For me, 3e and 5e's math problems are rooted in the same issue (though 5e is better about it, it still is the same problem): Because numbers scale disparately, once you get to high levels, certain things tend to be either a sure thing for half the party or almost impossible, for the other half. In skills, this is manageable, since most skills rely on the fact that only one person needs to succeed for the check to succeed (perception, knowledge skills, Disable Device, ect), while the ones that require everyone to succeed tend to either be stuff like stealth, where one member of the party will scout ahead alone, or stuff like athletics, to climb up a mountain face, where, failure doesn't mean you can't try again, it just means that you lose some time, or suffer some other complication.

In other aspects of the system, this disparity can be a huge issue. Saving throws, for example. Most of the time, the game is balanced such that the fast saving throw progression (or proficiency in 5e) scales roughly equally with enemy save DCs. The issue, though, is that slower save progression lags well behind that fast save progression, and by the time you get to higher levels, it is incredibly easy to target weak saves.

[Sartharina]

In other aspects of the system, this disparity can be a huge issue. Saving throws, for example. Most of the time, the game is balanced such that the fast saving throw progression (or proficiency in 5e) scales roughly equally with enemy save DCs.Which happens to be the most retarded way to have saves scale, ever - They should be keyed to the slowest progression, not fastest.

[Knaight]

If D&D Next has bad math, then there are NO systems with "Good Math" - the percentiles for any task that needs dice resolution are almost always in the 25-75% range.

There are plenty. GURPS and Fudge come to mind here. A character with Legendary skill (+4) in Fudge succeeds on a task of Good difficulty (+1) 98.7% of the time. There's still a failure chance, but having a high skill really does make a pretty big difference. Meanwhile a character with Fair skill (averagish, +0) succeeds 38.3% of the time. GURPS is a 3d6 roll under system, where more difficult tasks impart penalties to the target number. At 17 skill, you succeed on average tasks 215/216 times. Then there's the One Roll Engine, which essentially runs from 2 to 10, at 2 you have a 10% chance of success at a typical task (no die penalty, no minimum target number), at 10 there's a miniscule fraction of a percent (there is literally 1 permutation which fails). The 25-75% range is frequently exceeded in lots of games, and in games with actual curved probabilities, it's often done while leaving in chances for those at the bottom to do better than those at the top - a Terrible (-3) skill in Fudge can beat Legendary (+4) in an opposed roll. The odds are slim, at a whopping 1/6561, but that's also a straight skill competition with no strategy whatsoever from the best and the worst in the game.

D&D 5e has some definite sloppiness. Save scaling keeping up with good saves as an effect of Proficiency, skills just never getting all that good, etc. With that said, most of it looks really easy to fix - and while not having to fix anything would be preferable, a handful of easy fixes really doesn't bother me that much. The current ones are doubling proficiency to skills, with a very real possibility of adding proficiency to all saves and double proficiency to good saves (though that depends on how monsters pan out).

It's still currently my favorite edition of D&D by a long shot though, even if there's a long list of non-D&D games I prefer.

[Fwiffo86]

There are plenty. GURPS and Fudge come to mind here. A character with Legendary skill (+4) in Fudge succeeds on a task of Good difficulty (+1) 98.7% of the time. There's still a failure chance, but having a high skill really does make a pretty big difference. Meanwhile a character with Fair skill (averagish, +0) succeeds 38.3% of the time. GURPS is a 3d6 roll under system, where more difficult tasks impart penalties to the target number. At 17 skill, you succeed on average tasks 215/216 times. Then there's the One Roll Engine, which essentially runs from 2 to 10, at 2 you have a 10% chance of success at a typical task (no die penalty, no minimum target number), at 10 there's a miniscule fraction of a percent (there is literally 1 permutation which fails). The 25-75% range is frequently exceeded in lots of games, and in games with actual curved probabilities, it's often done while leaving in chances for those at the bottom to do better than those at the top - a Terrible (-3) skill in Fudge can beat Legendary (+4) in an opposed roll. The odds are slim, at a whopping 1/6561, but that's also a straight skill competition with no strategy whatsoever from the best and the worst in the game.

D&D 5e has some definite sloppiness. Save scaling keeping up with good saves as an effect of Proficiency, skills just never getting all that good, etc. With that said, most of it looks really easy to fix - and while not having to fix anything would be preferable, a handful of easy fixes really doesn't bother me that much. The current ones are doubling proficiency to skills, with a very real possibility of adding proficiency to all saves and double proficiency to good saves (though that depends on how monsters pan out).

It's still currently my favorite edition of D&D by a long shot though, even if there's a long list of non-D&D games I prefer.

I don't think GURPS is a good choice. Since GURPS defines being a professional (getting paid to use X skill) is only a 12. While experts in their field (a narrow margin) lists skill 16 (make sense for their specialty). I don't know the math specifically, but needing a 12 or under on 3d sounds simple, but I think it works out to something like 74% or so. 26% of failure is impressive for professionals.

[Knaight]

I don't think GURPS is a good choice. Since GURPS defines being a professional (getting paid to use X skill) is only a 12. While experts in their field (a narrow margin) lists skill 16 (make sense for their specialty). I don't know the math specifically, but needing a 12 or under on 3d sounds simple, but I think it works out to something like 74% or so. 26% of failure is impressive for professionals.

Seeing as most die rolls are for high pressure conditions with time constraints, and there's a good chance of things being outside of the professionals specific area of expertise, that doesn't seem too bad to me. Sailors screwing up navigation during a storm, computer technicians having issues quickly working with unfamiliar systems, engineers coming up with crappy designs on the fly - all of that seems pretty plausible to me.

After all, GURPS explicitly says that you don't roll under normal conditions when you would generally succeed.

[Sartharina]

Seeing as most die rolls are for high pressure conditions with time constraints, and there's a good chance of things being outside of the professionals specific area of expertise, that doesn't seem too bad to me. Sailors screwing up navigation during a storm, computer technicians having issues quickly working with unfamiliar systems, engineers coming up with crappy designs on the fly - all of that seems pretty plausible to me.

After all, GURPS explicitly says that you don't roll under normal conditions when you would generally succeed.

So does D&D.

[Knaight]

So does D&D.

Sure, but that level is also the baseline professional - the actual expert fails way, way less often, whereas 5e D&D's maximum +11 bonus (20 attribute, +6 proficiency) does a lot less than an 18 or even 16 in GURPS. Essentially, GURPS cuts out all the other issues, and because of that the baseline one is minimized.

Plus, even with GURPS, there's a case to be made for bumping the baseline level up to 13.

[da_chicken]

Most of the time, the game is balanced such that the fast saving throw progression (or proficiency in 5e) scales roughly equally with enemy save DCs.

Again, this is the wrong way to think about enemies. You're not supposed to always be facing equal Challenge level opponents. That's the 3e and 4e method. Stop looking at "Challenge" as "This is what I have to be fighting". It's not related like that anymore.

Take the LMoP Giant Spider (Challenge 1) with DC 12 webs and DC 11 poison. At level 1 when the Fighter has +3 to his Str check and +4 to his Con saves and the Wizard has +0 Str and +2 Con save those DCs are pretty scary. When you get to level 10 and you're fighting a swarm of them, the Fighter, who has spent the last 10 levels boosting his Strength and Con, is much less concerned since he has +5 to his Str checks (+7 if he's a Champion) and +7 or +8 to his Con saves. The Wizard, however, still finds those attacks just as threatening! She's been spending her time learning to cast spells better and learning to resist the effects of magic on her mind, so she's still got +0 and +2. Both characters have HP and abilities that greatly improve their odds of survival, but the Wizard still finds the attacks of that Giant Spider creature are likely to affect her if they hit.

If you compare what your level X character does well with what monsters of Challenge X do well, they should have about the same success and failure rate as if you compare what your level Y character does well with what monsters of Challenge Y do well. Yes, you got a lot better, but so did the monsters. That's what having a higher Challenge rating means. If you think about it, you realize that it has to be this way. See, that Challenge X monster is built to be challenging to your level X character. It's abilities have to challenge you -- especially what you're good at -- otherwise it's not a challenge.

Did you ever fight mummies as a 3.x paladin? It's a joke. Mummies cause fear that paralyzes opponents. Paladins are immune to fear. Mummies cause a supernatural disease that is one of the most deadly effects in the game. Paladins are immune to disease, including supernatural diseases. Paladins literally outclass mummies. They're CR 5 with 9 HD, and a Paladin 5 can grind through them all day. They don't challenge a Paladin any more than a zombie does. That kind of outclassing is what 5e has to avoid in order for the design goal of "The DM's roster always expands, it never contracts" to be valid.

[Knaight]

If you compare what your level X character does well with what monsters of Challenge X do well, they should have about the same success and failure rate as if you compare what your level Y character does well with what monsters of Challenge Y do well. Yes, you got a lot better, but so did the monsters. That's what having a higher Challenge rating means. If you think about it, you realize that it has to be this way. See, that Challenge X monster is built to be challenging to your level X character. It's abilities have to challenge you -- especially what you're good at -- otherwise it's not a challenge.

That's not the issue here. The issue is that characters essentially get weaker at their weaknesses. A level X+10 character is more susceptible to a level X+10 monster targeting their weaknesses than a level X character is to a level X monster.

It also very much doesn't have to be that way. The abilities have to challenge, sure, but that doesn't mean they have to go straight up against the strengths and be just as good. The strength-weakness gap grows as an innate effect of Proficiency, and because that grows it makes perfect sense for things to gradually shift from going straight up against the strengths to increased targeting of weaknesses. After all, the characters get more options as they improve. Why shouldn't the monsters?

[Tholomyes]

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see the "The DM's roster always expands, it never contracts" as all that valid. Perhaps it's that I've never seen fighting a horde of weak level 1 mooks as all that interesting, nor do I particularly enjoy running or playing in encounters where half of the party is completely unchallenged by the enemy and the other half might as well not be there.

[Human Paragon 3]

The main issue is that the system relies on very small static modifiers (in the +1 to +3 range) and a huge random spread on the die (+1 to +20, since it's 1d20). This results in a resolution system that's extremely random, where character skill matters relatively little, and where it happens frequently that a skilled character will randomly lose to a rookie. Basically, the system never allows your character to become good at anything.

Whether or not you like that is a matter of taste, of course. Some people love it that a high-level ranger can still be challenged by climbing a tree (since he has a substantial chance to fail at climbing it), whereas other people either think that this is silly.


Is taking 10 no longer a thing?

A 10th level ranger should have at least a +7 to his roll. If he either had advantage or was able to take 10, he would make the check almost all the time. If he can't take 10, it's because he's being attacked or chased or something, in which case a 10% chance of failure seems fine to me.

EDIT: Apparently taking 10 IS no longer a thing. However, from the basic rules, on Athletics checks:

"Your athletics check covers difficult situations encountered while climbing... Examples include:

You attempt to climb a sheer or slipper cliff, avoid hazards while scaling a wall, attempt to cling to a surface while somebody is trying to knock you off."

Note what's NOT listed under the athletics skills? Climbing a tree. Guess what? Climbing a tree while nobody's trying to stop you is an auto success in 5e.

Maybe if it was during a hurricane, or the tree was a treant, or you were being peppered with arrows, then you'd need to make a check.

[da_chicken]

That's not the issue here. The issue is that characters essentially get weaker at their weaknesses. A level X+10 character is more susceptible to a level X+10 monster targeting their weaknesses than a level X character is to a level X monster.

Yes, because the monster got better! Spells from a lich are more dangerous than spells from a goblin shaman even if it's the same spell. Attacks from a grandmaster swordsman are more dangerous than those from a village thug, even if they both have a sword. Mage armor ain't gonna cut it. If you didn't spend any effort getting better at something, why would you be better at it? Because you're 10 Wizard levels higher? You're not any better at swinging a greataxe. You're not any better at picking a lock. Why are you better at resisting a poison, or dodging a falling block trap?

I also argue that this exact situation exists in both 3e and 4e and the math just hides it from you.

In 3e, the difference between max save and min save is... +6. So that game actually has the exact same range, and the math of save DCs has that range built in to it. So your Wizard isn't getting better at equal level Fort saves, because those DCs are also designed partially to challenge Fighters with high Fort saves. So your poor Fort saves are just as bad as non-proficient Con saves. At high level, an unoptimized or PHB only Fighter's Fort save (or Will save) and an unoptimized or PHB only Wizard's Fort save (or Will save) should be about +8 or more different. That's not really that different from 5e.

In 4e, the difference is just +2 for the whole game with "good" advancement coming solely from stat gains, but except for HP and damage scaling the only scaling in the entire game is 1/2 level (plus whatever enhancement bonus math is built into the game that bring it closer to +2/3). You could literally drop the 1/2 level from everything and defenses are no different. Adding 1/2 level actually does nothing except give you the illusion that you get better. Your numbers are bigger, but so are the monsters. Monsters improve at the same rate in that game, too. That's why the math from 4e is kind of stupid. All you do is outclass existing monsters, meaning you're unable to use early monsters as later game opponents since you just outclass them entirely. The treadmill just means lower CR monsters can't keep up. That's all it does. The game still has to challenge you using the same d20 rolls you used at level 1.

All 5e does is drop the illusion that the treadmill makes you better by dropping the treadmill entirely.


It also very much doesn't have to be that way. The abilities have to challenge, sure, but that doesn't mean they have to go straight up against the strengths and be just as good. The strength-weakness gap grows as an innate effect of Proficiency, and because that grows it makes perfect sense for things to gradually shift from going straight up against the strengths to increased targeting of weaknesses. After all, the characters get more options as they improve. Why shouldn't the monsters?

Of course it doesn't have to be that way. 3e and 4e are different. I'm not saying how it has to be, I'm saying how 5e is and why being that way isn't "bad" math. It's largely the exact same math that the game has hidden from you for that past 15 years. That you complain about it now merely reveals that you've bought in to the treadmill idea that all numbers have to get bigger just because you gained a level. That's not how 5e works. In 5e, numbers only get bigger when you actually improve.

[da_chicken]

EDIT: Apparently taking 10 IS no longer a thing. However, from the basic rules, on Athletics checks:

"Your athletics check covers difficult situations encountered while climbing... Examples include:

You attempt to climb a sheer or slipper cliff, avoid hazards while scaling a wall, attempt to cling to a surface while somebody is trying to knock you off."

Note what's NOT listed under the athletics skills? Climbing a tree. Guess what? Climbing a tree while nobody's trying to stop you is an auto success in 5e.

Maybe if it was during a hurricane, or the tree was a treant, or you were being peppered with arrows, then you'd need to make a check.

Examples are not meant to enumerate everything applicable. They're examples. It doesn't have to mention climbing a tree for Athletics to apply. That it says "climbing" is enough. Athletics covers climbing, jumping, and swimming, Acrobatics covers balance and tumble, etc.

The closest to "Take 10" is called a "Passive Check". It's on page 59 of Basic. I expect the DMG will have notes about when to not bother with rolling dice. "Take 10" really means "My character is trained and would know how to do that, do I really need to roll a die? Is this what you want to challenge my character with?" Getting a DM to not always ask for a die roll when what you're doing isn't supposed to be hard is part of good DMing. On the other hand, I suspect many 3.x and 4.x players will just import the rule outright.

[Knaight]

Yes, because the monster got better! Spells from a lich are more dangerous than spells from a goblin shaman even if it's the same spell. Attacks from a grandmaster swordsman are more dangerous than those from a village thug, even if they both have a sword. Mage armor ain't gonna cut it. If you didn't spend any effort getting better at something, why would you be better at it? Because you're 10 Wizard levels higher? You're not any better at swinging a greataxe. You're not any better at picking a lock. Why are you better at resisting a poison, or dodging a falling block trap?

We're talking about saves. Everybody is going to get practice with saves, because everyone is going to be having to make them. They should all be improving just fine.

[da_chicken]

We're talking about saves. Everybody is going to get practice with saves, because everyone is going to be having to make them. They should all be improving just fine.

So, because a spider bit you 2 months ago, you're better at not getting leprosy from the mummy?

[Tholomyes]

Yes, because the monster got better! Spells from a lich are more dangerous than spells from a goblin shaman even if it's the same spell. Attacks from a grandmaster swordsman are more dangerous than those from a village thug, even if they both have a sword. Mage armor ain't gonna cut it. If you didn't spend any effort getting better at something, why would you be better at it? Because you're 10 Wizard levels higher? You're not any better at swinging a greataxe. You're not any better at picking a lock. Why are you better at resisting a poison, or dodging a falling block trap?

I also argue that this exact situation exists in both 3e and 4e and the math just hides it from you.

In 3e, the difference between max save and min save is... +6. So that game actually has the exact same range, and the math of save DCs has that range built in to it. So your Wizard isn't getting better at equal level Fort saves, because those DCs are also designed partially to challenge Fighters with high Fort saves. So your poor Fort saves are just as bad as non-proficient Con saves. At high level, an unoptimized or PHB only Fighter's Fort save (or Will save) and an unoptimized or PHB only Wizard's Fort save (or Will save) should be about +8 or more different. That's not really that different from 5e.

In 4e, the difference is just +2 for the whole game with "good" advancement coming solely from stat gains, but except for HP and damage scaling the only scaling in the entire game is 1/2 level (plus whatever enhancement bonus math is built into the game that bring it closer to +2/3). You could literally drop the 1/2 level from everything and defenses are no different. Adding 1/2 level actually does nothing except give you the illusion that you get better. Your numbers are bigger, but so are the monsters. Monsters improve at the same rate in that game, too. That's why the math from 4e is kind of stupid. All you do is outclass existing monsters, meaning you're unable to use early monsters as later game opponents since you just outclass them entirely. The treadmill just means lower CR monsters can't keep up. That's all it does. The game still has to challenge you using the same d20 rolls you used at level 1.

All 5e does is drop the illusion that the treadmill makes you better by dropping the treadmill entirely.



Of course it doesn't have to be that way. 3e and 4e are different. I'm not saying how it has to be, I'm saying how 5e is and why being that way isn't "bad" math. It's largely the exact same math that the game has hidden from you for that past 15 years. That you complain about it now merely reveals that you've bought in to the treadmill idea that all numbers have to get bigger just because you gained a level. That's not how 5e works. In 5e, numbers only get bigger when you actually improve.If you've been active on 3e and 4e forums, you'll note that these were some of the same issues that people have been complaining about for 15 years. The difference is two fold, as to why this not only as bad but potentially worse are that Saves are broader than in prior editions. In 3e you get 1-2 (or for the monk 3) good saves for 3 potential saves. In 4e you advance (barring some weird combinations that are mostly reserved for Hybrids) 2 of your 3 stats that go into defenses. In 5e, you only get proficiency in two saves out of 6. While you might argue that only 3 of them are all that important, you also find that classes only get one of those saves (for the most part) are proficient, while the other is usually one of the three saves which are largely unimportant.

While it's been a problem before, that doesn't make it not a problem now, and dropping the treadmill changes nothing.

[Sartharina]

Yes, because the monster got better! Spells from a lich are more dangerous than spells from a goblin shaman even if it's the same spell. Attacks from a grandmaster swordsman are more dangerous than those from a village thug, even if they both have a sword. Mage armor ain't gonna cut it. If you didn't spend any effort getting better at something, why would you be better at it? Because you're 10 Wizard levels higher? You're not any better at swinging a greataxe. You're not any better at picking a lock. Why are you better at resisting a poison, or dodging a falling block trap?Because dealing with Occupational Hazards like this is part of being a Wizard, which is a type of Adventurer. You're always dealing with crazy **** like this, even if you're not specializing for it. It's one of the reasons I actually liked 4e's "Half level" bonus to every check - you're getting better at every crazy thing you have to do, even if it's outside your specialization.

Why should the 10th-level wizard be better at making constitution and dexterity checks than the 1st-level wizard? Because he's been putting up with trying to make 9 more levels of dexterity and constitution checks.

[Tholomyes]

Because dealing with Occupational Hazards like this is part of being a Wizard, which is a type of Adventurer. You're always dealing with crazy **** like this, even if you're not specializing for it. It's one of the reasons I actually liked 4e's "Half level" bonus to every check - you're getting better at every crazy thing you have to do, even if it's outside your specialization.

Why should the 10th-level wizard be better at making constitution and dexterity checks than the 1st-level wizard? Because he's been putting up with trying to make 9 more levels of dexterity and constitution checks.The thing that bugs me, is when people argue against stuff like that to have huge gaps in skill bonuses, but they will also claim that fighters are fine, because they can just improvise maneuvers. At least IME, skill checks tend to be frequently utilized for these improvisations. Even if the DM tries to stick to skill DCs that are reasonable for the character to achieve, it'll still prove to discourage improvisation.

[obryn]

Yes, because the monster got better! Spells from a lich are more dangerous than spells from a goblin shaman even if it's the same spell. Attacks from a grandmaster swordsman are more dangerous than those from a village thug, even if they both have a sword. Mage armor ain't gonna cut it. If you didn't spend any effort getting better at something, why would you be better at it? Because you're 10 Wizard levels higher? You're not any better at swinging a greataxe. You're not any better at picking a lock. Why are you better at resisting a poison, or dodging a falling block trap?
Because you're and adventurer and you've spent the past 10 levels adventuring. It's the same reason you get more hit points.


In 3e, the difference between max save and min save is... +6. So that game actually has the exact same range, and the math of save DCs has that range built in to it. So your Wizard isn't getting better at equal level Fort saves, because those DCs are also designed partially to challenge Fighters with high Fort saves. So your poor Fort saves are just as bad as non-proficient Con saves. At high level, an unoptimized or PHB only Fighter's Fort save (or Will save) and an unoptimized or PHB only Wizard's Fort save (or Will save) should be about +8 or more different. That's not really that different from 5e.
It's a similar problem, but in 3e it's a lot worse. In 3e, ability scores are unbounded. This means (1) a caster, who only needs to bump one stat, can (and will!) push it higher and higher, forcing worse and worse saves; and (2) the target's secondary stats can't keep up. There's a further problem due to multiclassing, where your "bad" saves can literally never improve by level, while your "good" saves are basically undefeatable. There's a big rpg.net post I can link to if you haven't seen it, which explains the problem in great detail.

5e has a very similar issue, but it's kept smaller in scope because of bounded stats.


In 4e, the difference is just +2 for the whole game with "good" advancement coming solely from stat gains, but except for HP and damage scaling the only scaling in the entire game is 1/2 level (plus whatever enhancement bonus math is built into the game that bring it closer to +2/3). You could literally drop the 1/2 level from everything and defenses are no different. Adding 1/2 level actually does nothing except give you the illusion that you get better. Your numbers are bigger, but so are the monsters. Monsters improve at the same rate in that game, too. That's why the math from 4e is kind of stupid. All you do is outclass existing monsters, meaning you're unable to use early monsters as later game opponents since you just outclass them entirely. The treadmill just means lower CR monsters can't keep up. That's all it does. The game still has to challenge you using the same d20 rolls you used at level 1.
In practice, you don't outpace the opposition all that fast. I've found I can reasonably use +/-4 levels of monsters; past that, and it gets bad and you should just use at-level minions (or elites/solos) instead. But otherwise, 4e has a much more bounded system than 5e does.

There's no illusion to it if you really are outclassing the guys who gave you a problem before. :smallsmile:

[da_chicken]

If you've been active on 3e and 4e forums, you'll note that these were some of the same issues that people have been complaining about for 15 years. The difference is two fold, as to why this not only as bad but potentially worse are that Saves are broader than in prior editions. In 3e you get 1-2 (or for the monk 3) good saves for 3 potential saves. In 4e you advance (barring some weird combinations that are mostly reserved for Hybrids) 2 of your 3 stats that go into defenses. In 5e, you only get proficiency in two saves out of 6. While you might argue that only 3 of them are all that important, you also find that classes only get one of those saves (for the most part) are proficient, while the other is usually one of the three saves which are largely unimportant.

While it's been a problem before, that doesn't make it not a problem now, and dropping the treadmill changes nothing.

So what's the complaint then? That 3e and 4e are bad, but 5e is no worse? Why is this topic on page 3 in this forum then, and not in the general section? If it's a general complaint about the d20 family of games, then it's not anything new and shouldn't discourage someone from switching to 5e if they already play previous editions. At this point it's just a "5e sucks" echo chamber, which is not particularly useful nor healthy on the 5e forum.

And 5e might technically have six saves, but in practice it doesn't currently. There have been exactly zero effects that target the new saves on a spell, item, or monster ability so far. The spells in Basic that used to use non-standard saves were all moved to standard saves. At this point they're less common than touch attacks and grapple checks in 3e. For all intents and purposes, they don't exist in D&D Basic. Does that mean they shouldn't exist? Almost certainly. The point, however, is that a saving throw is a function of any ability score rather than only a few. The saving throw then has a general definition about what it means, and then each ability has different effects you could be saving against. Yes, I would prefer the 4e style with coupled abilities and saves, but that's not what we have in 5e.


Because dealing with Occupational Hazards like this is part of being a Wizard, which is a type of Adventurer. You're always dealing with crazy **** like this, even if you're not specializing for it. It's one of the reasons I actually liked 4e's "Half level" bonus to every check - you're getting better at every crazy thing you have to do, even if it's outside your specialization.

Why should the 10th-level wizard be better at making constitution and dexterity checks than the 1st-level wizard? Because he's been putting up with trying to make 9 more levels of dexterity and constitution checks.

But you're not getting better in those games either! That's the point.

In 4e, monster attack bonuses, even against NADs in 4e, scale faster than 1/2 your level + enhancement bonuses. Monster attacks scale at +1 for every level, as you can see in the table (http://i.imgur.com/EHYtvEV.png) in the DMG errata (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/UpdateDMG.pdf) on page 7. PC Defenses outside ability score increases but including enhancement bonuses are +7 every 10 levels. You must invest in your attributes to keep up, and that only gets you to +8 every 10 levels. In that game you always fight monsters with CR at or near your level. You're not meant to be challenged by lower CR monsters like you're meant to be challenged by lower Challenge monsters in 5e. You can't ignore that for this discussion because that ignores how the games are actually played and how DMs are told to run the game. That means for a Wizard their Fort or Will saves (whichever one you're not advancing) are actively getting worse as you level. Indeed, the base 4e math is such that all your attacks and defenses get worse as you level, hence the "feat taxes" of expertise and paragon/robust defense (the latter taking your good defenses to +10 every 10 levels... finally being as good as the monsters). Yes, PCs get a ton of other abilities that make up for this defense loss, but your defenses still get worse as you level.

[obryn]

In 4e, monster attack bonuses, even against NADs in 4e, scale faster than 1/2 your level + enhancement bonuses. Monster attacks scale at +1 for every level, as you can see in the table (http://i.imgur.com/EHYtvEV.png) in the DMG errata (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/UpdateDMG.pdf) on page 7. PC Defenses outside ability score increases but including enhancement bonuses are +7 every 10 levels. You must invest in your attributes to keep up, and that only gets you to +8 every 10 levels. In that game you always fight monsters with CR at or near your level. You're not meant to be challenged by lower CR monsters like you're meant to be challenged by lower Challenge monsters in 5e. You can't ignore that for this discussion because that ignores how the games are actually played and how DMs are told to run the game. That means for a Wizard their Fort or Will saves (whichever one you're not advancing) are actively getting worse as you level. Indeed, the base 4e math is such that all your attacks and defenses get worse as you level, hence the "feat taxes" of expertise and paragon/robust defense (the latter taking your good defenses to +10 every 10 levels... finally being as good as the monsters). Yes, PCs get a ton of other abilities that make up for this defense loss, but your defenses still get worse as you level.
Yeah, feat taxes are pretty awful. On the upside, since I think feats are themselves awful, at least they make it quick to pick them. :smallbiggrin:

(Seriously, though, those and expertise bonuses should just get baked into the game's math like for inherent bonuses.)

[Tholomyes]

@Da_chicken: I think you don't understand the issue. Just because it was a problem in prior editions doesn't mean it's not a problem still. It's a problem that 5e could have easily fixed, especially with the bounded ability scores and didn't. I don't think anyone is saying that it wasn't an issue in other systems, but it's still an issue in 5e, which is why we're talking about it on the 5e forums, just as we've argued it on 3e and 4e forums in days past. And you know what? At least in the case of 4e, it actually did some good, with the release of Weapon Expertise feats. Are they a math-fix feat tax? Yes. But I'd rather have them release it than not.

[Human Paragon 3]

Examples are not meant to enumerate everything applicable. They're examples. It doesn't have to mention climbing a tree for Athletics to apply. That it says "climbing" is enough. Athletics covers climbing, jumping, and swimming, Acrobatics covers balance and tumble, etc.

The closest to "Take 10" is called a "Passive Check". It's on page 59 of Basic. I expect the DMG will have notes about when to not bother with rolling dice. "Take 10" really means "My character is trained and would know how to do that, do I really need to roll a die? Is this what you want to challenge my character with?" Getting a DM to not always ask for a die roll when what you're doing isn't supposed to be hard is part of good DMing. On the other hand, I suspect many 3.x and 4.x players will just import the rule outright.

I'm sure the DMG will get into it more, but I respectfully disagree with your reading of the athletics skill. It doesn't say it's for "climbing." It specifically says you make an athletics (strength) check to "overcome difficult situations when climbing." Nothing in that description suggests you need to roll a die just to climb a tree.

Frankly, I'm all for that. It was always stupid to make players roll for simple jump and climb checks that they would just either repeat till they got right, get help from an ally, or take a few HPs of damage has a penalty (which would be immediately healed). At mid levels, these kinds of challenges were immediately made irrelevant by spells and class features anyway. This ate up valuable time at the table to no purpose.

If you are being persued by hungry dire wolves, or if you're in the middle of an enemy wizard's sleet storm, or if you're being knocked off a cliff face by a great-sword wielding harpy, THEN let's roll a die. Until then, if you want to climb, just climb.

[da_chicken]

I'm sure the DMG will get into it more, but I respectfully disagree with your eading of the athletics skill. It doesn't say it's for "climbing." It specifically says you make an athletics (strength) check to "overcome difficult situations when climbing." Nothing in that description suggests you need to roll a die just to climb a tree.

Frankly, I'm all for that. It was always stupid to make players roll for simple jump and climb checks that they would just either repeat till they got right, or get help from an ally. This ate up valuable time at the table to no purpose.

If you are being persued by hungry dire wolves, or if you're in the middle of an enemy wizard's sleet storm, or if you're being knocked off a cliff face by a great-sword wielding harpy, THEN let's roll a die. Until then, if you want to climb, just climb.

Sure, I'll agree with that. I was assuming that the DM had already decided a check of some kind was necessary. A ranger climbing a tree probably doesn't require a check unless we're talking about something the DM wants to be challenging.

[Person_Man]

My overall assessment of the math is that it works great at low levels, and doesn't work well at high levels, although its less broken then 3.5 or PF.

RE Skills:

If you only have Proficiency in a Skill and a decent relevant Ability Score, your success rate will be higher then someone without those things, but very unreliable for many Skill checks, even at high levels.
It appears as if the Rogue basically gets double his Proficiency bonus and other buffs to Skill uses, the Bard can probably add a die to Skills via a Performance option of some sort, and various spells buff Skills or bypass the need for certain (Fly bypasses Climb, Summon semi-bypasses disarm trap, Charm/Dominate bypasses social Skills, etc). So if you invest in being good at a Skill via appropriate class and/or spell choices, you're likely to reliably succeed in almost all Skill rolls, or simply bypass them entirely.
In my opinion this is poor game design, because it requires a much higher level of rules mastery in order to accomplish a fairly simple goal of being reliably successful at a Skill. Skills are supposedly things that any humanoid can be good at. If you've made the design decision that only certain classes or builds are going to be reliably successful at those things, then just segregate them entirely into class abilities. (As it was in 1E/2E with Pick Pockets, Open Locks, Find/Remove Traps, Hide, Move Silently, Detect Noise, and Read Languages).


RE Saves:

If you do not have Proficiency in a Saving Throw, you get comparatively worse at it as you gain levels against enemies with a comparable difficulty level. For example, a 1st level Fighter will have a 50%ish chance of making a Dex Save against a CR 1ish monster (assuming that monster has Proficiency in whatever ability they're attacking you with). But at 20th level, your success rate against a CR 20 monster will be 15%ish or less (because the monster's proficiency is higher, and its Ability Score will be higher, but your non-Proficiency bonus is still 0 and your Ability Score is limited to a maximum of +5 and will probably be a lower number if its not your primary attribute).
It'll be interesting to see what the Monk and Paladin look like. They may end up being very tanky classes at high levels, since other classes are so much more fragile by default.

[Sartharina]

... assuming monsters have Proficiency at all...

[Human Paragon 3]

I think it's safe to assume the DC to resist monster's attacks will scale at roughly the same rate as PC proficiency bonuses. Even if they barely scale at all, they'll rise faster than characters without proficiency.

[obryn]

... assuming monsters have Proficiency at all...
Reverse engineering monsters indicates that they seem to. Save DCs all seem to work that way in the Starter Kit - calculated as 8 + Stat Mod + Proficiency based on Hit Dice.

Also, leaked monsters like the Lich seem to confirm it.

[Jeraa]

... assuming monsters have Proficiency at all...

They do have profeciency. If you deconstruct the monsters in the Starter Set, you can see they have proficiency with their attacks, most if not all of the skills they are listed with, and any saving throw modifiers that are listed in the entry.

[Demonic Spoon]

In my opinion this is poor game design, because it requires a much higher level of rules mastery in order to accomplish a fairly simple goal of being reliably successful at a Skill. Skills are supposedly things that any humanoid can be good at. If you've made the design decision that only certain classes or builds are going to be reliably successful at those things, then just segregate them entirely into class abilities. (As it was in 1E/2E with Pick Pockets, Open Locks, Find/Remove Traps, Hide, Move Silently, Detect Noise, and Read Languages).


I think there's a big distinction between "only members of a class should be able to reliably make a difficult check that relies on this skill" and "only members of a class should be able to make the check at all". Everyone should be able to attempt to hide to lay an ambush, some people should be better at it than others (Proficiency), and some people should be masters of stealth (Proficiency + class abilities).

I don't see rules mastery being a concern unless multiclassing rules will be lax enough to encourage substantial dipping in order to get the additional skill benefits.

[Chaosvii7]

... assuming monsters have Proficiency at all...

Actually, looking at some of the monsters from the starter set, most have a +2 bonus on top of their to-hits from their Strength modifier(another thing of note; It looks like natural weaponry isn't normally finessable, which it used to be in 3.X). Maybe it's not proficiency, but monsters definitely have a bonus on top of their ability scores. It could just be a permanently static +2 to hit with proficient weaponry.

Which actually makes sense; They wanted monster math to be simple and cohesive, so it could be that in the guidelines for creating a monster, you choose weaponry that they're proficient with and give them a +2 to it. That also synchs up incredibly well with the notion that monsters can get as high as a 30 in their ability scores, which means that monster advancement is particularly reliant on increasing ability scores, which is probably the most beneficial math in the game, as ability score modifiers factor into every little thing.

So it's not a wild assumption, but calling the bonuses that monsters have "proficiency" might be a little bit of a stretch.

EDIT: Did I get Swordsaged? I'm supposed to be the martial adept here. :smalltongue:

[Human Paragon 3]

I think there's a big distinction between "only members of a class should be able to reliably make a difficult check that relies on this skill" and "only members of a class should be able to make the check at all". Everyone should be able to attempt to hide to lay an ambush, some people should be better at it than others (Proficiency), and some people should be masters of stealth (Proficiency + class abilities).

I don't see rules mastery being a concern unless multiclassing rules will be lax enough to encourage substantial dipping in order to get the additional skill benefits.

So if we're comparing a random person to an adventurer, and then to a rogue, here's what we see, where attribute bonus is B and proficiency bonus is P.

Normal person: Bonus to roll is B
Adventurer: Bonus to roll is B+P
Rogue: Bonus to roll is B+2P.

At 10th level, attempting a DC 15 check (medium), assuming an attribute bonus of +1 for the normal person, 2 for the random adventurer, and 4 for the rogue the odds of success are:

Normal person: 15 - 1 X.05 = 35%
Adventurer: 15 - (2+4) X .05 = 55%
Rogue: 15 - (4+ 2x4) x .05 = 85%

Those numbers seem OK to me.

[da_chicken]

@Da_chicken: I think you don't understand the issue. Just because it was a problem in prior editions doesn't mean it's not a problem still. It's a problem that 5e could have easily fixed, especially with the bounded ability scores and didn't. I don't think anyone is saying that it wasn't an issue in other systems, but it's still an issue in 5e, which is why we're talking about it on the 5e forums, just as we've argued it on 3e and 4e forums in days past.

But nobody is talking about how it should be fixed. They're just repeating over and over that it's a problem. Nobody is even defining what the problem actually is let alone when it becomes a probem.

Look, I don't think anybody disputes the idea that attacks, saves, and skills should be a combination of natural talent (ability scores) and skill learned by training (proficiency). I think that models reality fairly well. This gives us four types of characters (using the standard array and assuming at least a +1 to a favored score):

1. The talented and trained (+5 --> +11).
2. The talented and untrained (+2 --> +5).
3. The untalented and trained (+1 --> +5).
4. The untalented and untrained (-1 --> -1).

So, knowing that, when does this go from modelling what we want -- that is, modelling that talent improves a character and training improves a character -- to being a problem? How much of a margin is good modelling? Right from level 1? Level 5? Level 10? Level 15? If, as you say, this is a simple problem it should be trivial to decide when this change happens.

Keep in mind that whatever system we use should generally apply to monsters, too. After all, if players get one system for attacks and saves and monsters get an entirely different system for attacks and saves, then we don't actually have to fix anything at all! We just have to make monsters use different and totally unrelated math. Of course, then stats for monsters mean totally different things than stats for PCs, which is unintuitive, misleading and complicated.



Let's put that question aside for a minute. Let's say we've picked our range. At that point, are we talking about instituting caps? Are we talking ceilings or floors? Ceilings seem to punish those that invest in an ability score, and there's already a ceiling on ability scores. Floors seems to encourage dump stats, which is something to be avoided. Players should not be rewarded even more for min/maxing stats.

Are we talking giving half proficiency to untrained? That means the benefit of training is +1 through level 4, +2 through level 13, and +3 through level 20. That's some pretty underwhelming training.

Are we talking about giving expertise to those proficient and proficiency to those untrained? That actually fixes nothing; you're just sliding the scale. Now you have:

1. The talented and trained (+7 --> +17).
2. The talented and untrained (+4 --> +11).
3. The untalented and trained (+3 --> +11).
4. The untalented and untrained (+1 --> +5).

The ranges didn't change at all. Category 4 characters are still 60% more likely to be affected. That means that a talented and trained character at high level is effectively immune to magic. Save +17 vs DC 19 is the exact opposite issue. Now spells never land. Who wants to play a Wizard when the spells you've been training to cast for the past 20 levels have a 10% chance to hit? I suppose that accurately models 2e saving throws, but unless all high level spells don't allow saves it's not very interesting. God forbid one of our characters find a ring of protection! We just created a new problem and still didn't solve the old one.



Lets get more specific. Let's say we decide that 4 is the magical proficiency range that models what we want. Even the most lazy, inattentive and uncoordinated lout, we say, learns something after 13 levels of banging your head against a wall. That means that proficiency bonuses of +5 and +6 are too far from +0. So a non-proficient character gets +1 when the proficiency bonus is +5, and +2 when the bonus is +6.

Now we have:
1. The talented and trained (+5 --> +11).
2. The talented and untrained (+2 --> +7).
3. The untalented and trained (+1 --> +5).
4. The untalented and untrained (-1 --> +1).

Is that good enough? We seem to be rewarding talent more than training. Is that good or bad? We also seem to be saying that no training can give you more than a +4 for saves. Why is training more effective elsewhere then? Should this range extend everywhere? If so, doesn't that mean that the game stops scaling at high level, and again reverts to the treadmill where bonuses simply accure to generate higher numbers because everybody gets higher numbers? If not, what does that say about saving throws?

To add to that, how do we know we're right? How do we confirm our hypothesis that the range of 4 is right? Furthermore, is that +2 bonus worth the additional complexity in the game? Now we can't just put a proficiency bonus to our characters, we have to put in a non-proficiency bonus, too! Does the rule add enough to make it worthwhile, or does it just add more fiddly bits to keep track of?



Let's say we determine the problem is just with save DCs. Let's say we decide we can fix it by changing the DC formula. It already gives an effective +3 bonus over skills and AC to the defender by starting at 8 and letting the target roll (remember, ties go to the die roll) but we don't think that's enough. We say that save DCs are 6 + ability modifier + proficiency bonus. We still have to ask the same questions as above. Does this actually do what we want? Is giving the defender an effective +5 to their defense too much? Is magic still viable? Is a Wizard outright ineffective at low level now? You're starting at DC 11 if you're a caster with a race that adds to your casting stat. Does a Wizard literally need an 18 to be able to compete now, even at 1st level? Does this mean that spells that roll an attack roll are drastically better since they work so much more often even though they target AC? Should we punish spell attack rolls by -2 now, too?



If it's such a simple problem, what's your fix? Why is it a fix? How do you know it fixes the problem and creates no new problems?


And you know what? At least in the case of 4e, it actually did some good, with the release of Weapon Expertise feats. Are they a math-fix feat tax? Yes. But I'd rather have them release it than not.

And by most accounts, 5e has feats that grant save proficiencies, and bounded accuracy appears to have fixed the expertise issue. One feat tax is still better than two.

[Sartharina]

And by most accounts, 5e has feats that grant save proficiencies, and bounded accuracy appears to have fixed the expertise issue. One feat tax is still better than two.Not when you have less than a third as many feats.

Losing 10% of your build resources is nowhere near as bad as losing 20%

[Human Paragon 3]

Not when you have less than a third as many feats.

Losing 10% of your build resources is nowhere near as bad as losing 20%

The feats might grant more than just save proficiency, too. They might be very worth it. We'll see.

[Knaight]

Not when you have less than a third as many feats.

Losing 10% of your build resources is nowhere near as bad as losing 20%

5e looks like it has mostly buffed the feats up, which is long overdue.

[Sartharina]

5e looks like it has mostly buffed the feats up, which is long overdue.But cut back on the number of them. Which I do kinda like, because they're more character-defining now.


The feats might grant more than just save proficiency, too. They might be very worth it. We'll see.The Expertise and Superior Defenses feats in 4e also granted more than just the math fixes.

[Person_Man]

... assuming monsters have Proficiency at all...

A very fair question. Like the Playgrounders above, I believe that they do based on the available evidence.

More importantly, I think its worth reiterating that while Players have their Ability Scores capped at 20 (+5), monsters can go up to 30 (+10). So while the vast majority of PC Saves and rolls will have default results between 1-31 (1d20 + max 6 from Proficiency + max 5 from Ability Score) most monsters will have default results between 1-36.

Now obviously either value can be pushed higher via magic, magic items, class abilities, Feats, etc. But there's a built in edge for monsters, which WotC presumably thinks PCs will make up via optimization choices.

So again, at low levels the math works fine (albeit a bit swingy for some people's tastes). But at higher level, it'll suffer the same problems 3E did. Players who optimize well will have much higher chances of success then players that don't. That's not really a problem if you have a good DM or if the players are in the same ballpark for optimization. But if the DM is new-ish or if optimized players are at the same table as unoptimized players, it could cause a lot of unintentional problems.

[Merc_Kilsek]

The feats might grant more than just save proficiency, too. They might be very worth it. We'll see.

Only the Resilient feat I recall offered saving throw proficiency (in one stat); in addition a +1 CON. Personally I'd let that modifier be universal.

[obryn]

If it's such a simple problem, what's your fix? Why is it a fix? How do you know it fixes the problem and creates no new problems?
I am not sure anyone has said it's a simple problem, especially now that it's embedded deep down into the game's DNA. Any changes will ripple across the entire system. The argument, as I understand it, is that the game could have been designed differently before it got here - when it would have been simpler to fix.

Some minor patches to the saving throw issue could include...
(1) Giving 1/2 proficiency bonus on "bad" saves.
(2) Giving full proficiency bonus on all saves, and let the stats be the deciding factor, which still leaves us with a range of -1 to +5 for at-level effects.
(3) Making Save DCs static, so they don't include one of the component elements with some other switches, maybe. Going to 10+Prof Bonus or 10+Stat Mod could work.

Some minor patches to skills could include...
(1) Knocking all DCs down by 5, making Average tasks pretty trivial for adventurers and making Very Difficult tasks more achievable for high-skilled characters
(2) Giving a minimum die roll result for Proficient characters
(3) Giving always-on Advantage for Proficient characters on top of the existing bonus

Some major overhauls could include
(1) Changing up the Proficiency Bonus so that it increases at a faster rate - while keeping in mind how this messes with saving throws and adjusting them accordingly.
(2) Removing the stat cap in stages and providing some automatic, across-the-board stat increases at (say) 10th and 18th.
(3) Change the level cap to 30 (or something), allowing for a higher "epic" ceiling in the 21-30 range. Put crazy foes like Asmodeus out here, and gradually increase the stat cap.

[Human Paragon 3]

Now obviously either value can be pushed higher via magic, magic items, class abilities, Feats, etc. But there's a built in edge for monsters, which WotC presumably thinks PCs will make up via optimization choices.



That may be a tad presumptuous. Maybe they think that the PCs edge will come from class features and action economy?

Dragons might get huge stats and have 30 con or whatever else, but they don't have the action economy of player characters or their class features.

[obryn]

Dragons might get huge stats and have 30 con or whatever else, but they don't have the action economy of player characters or their class features.
Built into Legendary foes is a tacit admission there's something funny going on with saves, though, with their ability to auto-succeed 3 of 'em.

[Human Paragon 3]

Built into Legendary foes is a tacit admission there's something funny going on with saves, though, with their ability to auto-succeed 3 of 'em.

What do you mean? Was that in another preview?

EDIT: That rule, if true, is a bit slapdash but will help fix combat immensely, since it's lame when epic final confrontations end on round 1 due to a failed save.

[obryn]

What do you mean? Was that in another preview?

EDIT: That rule, if true, is a bit slapdash but will help fix combat immensely, since it's lame when epic final confrontations end on round 1 due to a failed save.
Yep, but it's like a duct-tape fix.

It has to be there because of how the rest of the system works, but the rest of the system didn't have to work in such a way that this was necessary.

[Human Paragon 3]

Yep, but it's like a duct-tape fix.

It has to be there because of how the rest of the system works, but the rest of the system didn't have to work in such a way that this was necessary.

Yeah. That's one other thing I liked about 4e (wow, they keep stacking up. It's like that was a pretty good game or something): they got rid of one-shot, one-save, save-or-die effects. Why the heck bring those back? Did anyone actually like those?

The slow burn transmute to stone effect (slow, then paralyzed, then petrified) with saves at each step was so slick and flavorful and dramatic, and didn't end the combat in one action.

[da_chicken]

Built into Legendary foes is a tacit admission there's something funny going on with saves, though, with their ability to auto-succeed 3 of 'em.

That's not something funny going on with saves, it's something funny going on with one monster pretending to be 5. Stunlocking solos in 4e was too effective, and their lack of multiple attacks per round made them a joke. If you want to have a solo monster in D&D, it has to strongly resist everything that cripples it and it has to be able to deal the same amount of damage as an entire encounters worth of monsters just by itself. For a dragon, that means the claws, tail and wings probably get to attack on their own. Using a Phoenix Down on the Phantom Train is funny as hell, but it's not very good game design.

[1337 b4k4]

Why the heck bring those back? Did anyone actually like those?

The slow burn transmute to stone effect (slow, then paralyzed, then petrified) with saves at each step was so slick and flavorful and dramatic, and didn't end the combat in one action.

I like em. The problem I had with how 4e did things was when those same powers were given to players, they felt cheap and not evocative. My go to example is the wizard sleep spell power (writing from memory here so the specific details may be wrong, but the basic thrust of it remains). Burst 2, roll your attack against every enemy. IF it hits (at a chance equal to any other attack) then all the enemies slow down for a round. Then on the next round IF they fail their save, they fall asleep and then save again every round thereafter. In all the times I wound up using it, I think I actually managed to put exactly 2 enemies to sleep. All the rest always wound up making their saves. The power wasn't "sleep" anymore, it was "temporary drowsy". Which isn't to say that I necessarily want save or die to also be save or die this round. I mean, let's face it, combat rounds are 10 seconds. There's no reason petrify or even sleep couldn't take a few rounds to take effect (but I do think different durations for different effects is called for, sleep should be faster than petrify), for example by doing *temporary* stat damage each round until the stat is reduced to 0 (or perhaps some higher number like 3, 5 or even 10). So in the case of petrify, perhaps it does 1d4 CON (the sleep spell might do 1d10 WIS) damage every round until reduced to 0. Until then, the player fights as normal (excepting for the stat decrease) representing the time between when the spell starts to take effect and the final paralysis. At the end of combat (when you stop counting rounds) the remainder of the spell takes effect. Keeps SoD effects deadly, dangerous and scary while still making them less "instant gib" effects.

[Merc_Kilsek]

Yeah. That's one other thing I liked about 4e (wow, they keep stacking up. It's like that was a pretty good game or something): they got rid of one-shot, one-save, save-or-die effects. Why the heck bring those back? Did anyone actually like those?

The slow burn transmute to stone effect (slow, then paralyzed, then petrified) with saves at each step was so slick and flavorful and dramatic, and didn't end the combat in one action.

I was never against the 'one save or die' when I was playing older editions, only that it was far to common. Drove me nuts in Basic D&D when a spider bite/poison needle trap/etc would just end your character. When they continued that into 1st and 2nd I started to think around it and making house rules. 3rd was a bit better in some ways making disease and poison deal stat damage and other effects besides death. 4th felt (to me) a little to safe on stat effects, most of the time they where annoying but not really that concerning once the fight was over.

Really just a personal choice in gaming style. Plus I don't recall a spell that was save or just flat out kill you in 5e, spells like Finger of Death is save/tons of damage. I could be wrong, I am not on my computer with my PDFs to check.

[Kurald Galain]

In skills, this is manageable, since most skills rely on the fact that only one person needs to succeed for the check to succeed (perception, knowledge skills, Disable Device, ect), while the ones that require everyone to succeed tend to either be stuff like stealth, where one member of the party will scout ahead alone, or stuff like athletics, to climb up a mountain face, where, failure doesn't mean you can't try again, it just means that you lose some time, or suffer some other complication.

In other aspects of the system, this disparity can be a huge issue. Saving throws, for example.

So the obvious conclusion is that skills and attacks/saving throws shouldn't follow the same rules.

Kind of like how in every earlier edition of D&D they don't. That's progress for you...



But nobody is talking about how it should be fixed. They're just repeating over and over that it's a problem. Nobody is even defining what the problem actually is let alone when it becomes a probem.

Look, I don't think anybody disputes the idea that attacks, saves, and skills should be a combination of natural talent (ability scores) and skill learned by training (proficiency). I think that models reality fairly well. This gives us four types of characters (using the standard array and assuming at least a +1 to a favored score):
Ok, here's what I consider a fair metric for character competency. For instance, I can swim a couple hundred meters without stopping, IRL; that's competent but not extraordinary, so I expect that a heroic character (with some training) can do that, too.

(1) Definition: an average task is something that (under stress) an average person can do erratically, or about 50% of the time. For example, I've shot a bow a few times IRL, and I sometimes hit the target and sometimes I don't (note that I mean the whole target, not the bullseye).
(2) Definition: a competent person can perform an average task consistently, even under stress; e.g. a competent archer will reliably hit the target. For the sake of playability, I'll accept 95% as the threshold for consistency, although I feel it should be higher.
(3) This can apply to any RPG, but mapping this to D&D we get DC 10 for an average task, +0 as the modifier for an average person, and +8 as the mark of competency. I don't see how it could possibly be unbalancing for a hero to be competent. We're not talking Olympic level sports here, nor any particular kind of high genius, just basic competency.

Query: at what level can a character be competent at a task?

In 3E, the answer is level 1 if relates to their primary attribute, level 2 otherwise. In 4E, it's also level 1 with their primary attribute, level 4 otherwise. In both cases, the character can spend a feat to do it by level 1 anyway. This is not a hard standard; in other games such as GURPS or White Wolf, the expectation is that your character can be competent right from the beginning.

In 5E it's slightly different. Characters aren't competent in their primary attribute until level 13, or level 8 by spending two feats on it, and aren't competent in other attributes ever unless they're a rogue (in which case it's level 9). In my mind, that means that my character will always be worse at swimming than I am IRL (unless he's both strength-primary and high level); and that while I can learn to be a competent guitar player if I wanted to, my character cannot (unless he's both charisma-primary and high level again).

[hawklost]

Ok, here's what I consider a fair metric for character competency. For instance, I can swim a couple hundred meters without stopping, IRL; that's competent but not extraordinary, so I expect that a heroic character (with some training) can do that, too.

(1) Definition: an average task is something that (under stress) an average person can do erratically, or about 50% of the time. For example, I've shot a bow a few times IRL, and I sometimes hit the target and sometimes I don't (note that I mean the whole target, not the bullseye).
(2) Definition: a competent person can perform an average task consistently, even under stress; e.g. a competent archer will reliably hit the target. For the sake of playability, I'll accept 95% as the threshold for consistency, although I feel it should be higher.
(3) This can apply to any RPG, but mapping this to D&D we get DC 10 for an average task, +0 as the modifier for an average person, and +8 as the mark of competency. I don't see how it could possibly be unbalancing for a hero to be competent. We're not talking Olympic level sports here, nor any particular kind of high genius, just basic competency.


I think your definition of Competent and Under Pressure might need a little work.

Lets look at a better scenario (in my mind)
1) A Competent Basketball player can shoot a 2 pointer about 80% of the time when no one is around
--- 1a) A Professional Basketball player can shoot a 2 pointer 95-100% of the time when no one is around

2) A Competent Basketball player can shoot a 2 pointer while under pressure only 50% of the time
--- 2a) A Professional Basketball player can shoot a 2 pointer about 80-90% of the time under pressure

So in a DnD setting, a Competent person could be someone with a +1-2 (above average in stats) or someone even with a +2 (proficiency in skill). An Professional skill would be +3-4 in stats AND +3-4 in proficiency.

A DC 10 for a competent person would have a 40-45% chance of success Under Pressure (otherwise why are you making them roll instead of just giving it to the competent person). A Professional level player would have a 80-90% chance of success Under Pressure for the same DC. That seems perfectly reasonable.

Note that PCs are usually not only gifted in their abilities, but aim to be proficient in certain areas.

Why proficiency shouldn't magically scale:

If a person was extremely Dexterous and could toss a ball into the net 85% of the time (+3) already but never ever practiced shooting hoops and instead went around doing long distance running (gaining proficiency in this) would they ever really get better at shooting hoops?
The answer is pretty much No, not unless they gain more natural Dexterity. They aren't training themselves in Shooting hoops so of course they won't really get better. On the other hand, even if they were not naturally gifted at long distance running, over time they would become better and better at it becuase they are working at it.

That is how I see proficiency. You must Work for your proficiency, not just gain it without even trying. (No partial increases in skills/saves for none-proficiency)

[Tholomyes]

So the obvious conclusion is that skills and attacks/saving throws shouldn't follow the same rules.

Kind of like how in every earlier edition of D&D they don't. That's progress for you...That's not at all what I'm saying. I'm saying it's less of a problem. Not that it isn't a problem or even that it's desirable.

[Fwiffo86]

Valid points, but wouldn't analysis be better served by crunching the numbers devoid of attribute bonuses? Theoretically you are arguing a character's skill, not their ability modifier.

How do the numbers work when you take attribute modifiers out of the equation? Are they what you expect? I almost think the attribute modifiers are throwing the numbers off. Basically I mean, the numbers may work just fine for the supposed competency numbers, but by adding in the attribute modifiers, you guys are throwing your own calculations off.

[obryn]

Valid points, but wouldn't analysis be better served by crunching the numbers devoid of attribute bonuses? Theoretically you are arguing a character's skill, not their ability modifier
You can't do that with 5e. There's no skill checks, only attribute checks with potential bonuses.

[Tholomyes]

You can't do that with 5e. There's no skill checks, only attribute checks with potential bonuses.

Which are the exact same thing as skill checks. The only difference is that all skills can be attempted untrained (unless they end up changing it so that there are checks which require certain proficiencies to attempt).

[obryn]

Which are the exact same thing as skill checks. The only difference is that all skills can be attempted untrained (unless they end up changing it so that there are checks which require certain proficiencies to attempt).
The issue is, your stat will overshadow your proficiency for most of the game. And you can't be good at, say, talking pretty, without a good Charisma.

[Fwiffo86]

couldn't the argument be made that the proficiency bonus represents competence? That arguing a 20th level character should have a better chance of getting a success at a given task than a 3rd level, when they in fact do?

I pose that attribute modifiers are an expression of talent, and not leveling. So basically the equations looks more like:

(Competence/proficiency) + (Talent/attribute mods) = Potential success

[hawklost]

The issue is, your stat will overshadow your proficiency for most of the game. And you can't be good at, say, talking pretty, without a good Charisma.

This kind of is like real life. Someone who practices public speaking would have to become extreme good at it to be someone who is an extreme natural.

Remember, an 20 on any stat is the peak of human (enter name of race here) performance. That is the Strongest/Fastest/Most charismatic man/woman out there.

Someone who is not as naturally inclined would have to be pretty dam good (high proficiency) to be able to compete.

It seems you think natural talent should have little or nothing to do with skills and instead just rely on a the skill (which is more 3.x's way to do it)

[obryn]

It seems you think natural talent should have little or nothing to do with skills and instead just rely on a the skill (which is more 3.x's way to do it)
I wasn't making any such argument, just pointing out how the system is set up in 5e. You can't ignore stat mods. They will never become irrelevant.

[Knaight]

This kind of is like real life. Someone who practices public speaking would have to become extreme good at it to be someone who is an extreme natural.

That's debatable, and even less true in a lot of other cases. An expert mountain climber climbs way better than someone who is just really strong. Expert archers are way better shots than someone who just happens to have very good fine motor skills. Trained scientists in a particular field understand it far better than someone who's just really smart. So on and so forth.

[hawklost]

That's debatable, and even less true in a lot of other cases. An expert mountain climber climbs way better than someone who is just really strong. Expert archers are way better shots than someone who just happens to have very good fine motor skills. Trained scientists in a particular field understand it far better than someone who's just really smart. So on and so forth.

Yes, someone who is an Expert Mountain Climber would be someone who has both the natural talent (Stat) And has a Proficiency bonus in it (+2 or +3).

Someone with Fine motor skills shoots better than someone who has decent motor skills though. (Stat vs Stat)
+2-3 vs +0

Someone with decent Motor skill but practices can get as good or slightly better than someone with Fine motor skills who just knows how to shoot (Prof bonus vs natural Stat)
+2-3(Prof bonus) vs +2-3(Nat Stat)

Someone with very Poor motor skills but practices might never even be as good as someone with Fine motor skills, but will probably still get better over time, never as good as the Natural though, or possibly with a high amount of training, equal to the Natural(Prof bonus (with neg stat) vs Natural Stat)
+1-2(Prof bonus with -1-2 stat) vs +2-3(Nat Stat)

Someone with Fine motor skills AND practices a lot would be considered more of an expert marksmen than both. (Natural stat And Prof bonus)
+4-6(Natural Stat and prof bonus)

As you can see, the Expert person is already more than than twice as good than the Fine motor control person and far better than a poor motor skill person (we define normal people with poor motor skill here). 5e represents people having Natural talent much better than 3.x which pretty much said, Natural talent means very little to skills once you pass level 5.

I am not saying that 5e has the best scoring system out of all TableTop games, I honestly prefer other systems out there for Stat and Skills (I love Scion only because they give examples of each Stat rank and examples for every other skill rank to give you a feeling of your char abilities). I do feel that 5e is an improvement for using the DnD style Stat system which is iconic and therefore will not be changed.

[1337 b4k4]

That's debatable, and even less true in a lot of other cases. An expert mountain climber climbs way better than someone who is just really strong. Expert archers are way better shots than someone who just happens to have very good fine motor skills. Trained scientists in a particular field understand it far better than someone who's just really smart. So on and so forth.

To be fair to D&D though, most characters are not (or aren't supposed to be, player desires not withstanding), subject matter experts. They aren't expert mountain climbers, trained scientists or even expert archers (which for that matter is distinctly different from expert combat archers). If they are "experts" at anything, it's being an adventurer, someone with substantial roundedness that gives them an edge in a variety of dangerous situations. An expert mountain climber might be able to scale the mountain faster than the 20 STR fighter, but he's going to be useless come the need to hold a stone ceiling trap from crushing the halfling. A expert scientist might be better than the 20 INT wizard or cleric in identifying the particular healing and medicinal uses of the herbs in question, but they're going to be hopelessly lost when it comes to deciphering the runes scattered throughout the mad lich's lair. And the expert archer might just outshoot the 20 DEX ranger in a tournament. But when 10 orcs are making a bloody murder death charge, the spray from the nearby waterfall has half blinded them and the blood from the wound in their head is making their hands slippery, they're going to be way out of their element.

Some games try to model this completely (GURPS with it's bell curve skill system and exhaustive skills list) others try to model it with basic patch mechanics (3.x with it's Take 10 and Take 20 rules). 5e appears to be going to route of not modeling it at all. Leaving it to the DM and players to establish the fictional world and the need (or lack there of) to roll the dice in a given situation. Where as GURPS might give you an NPC with high STR and lots of points in Mountain Climber and use the bell curve to keep lesser characters from succeeding, and 3.x would give you an NPC with the mountain climber NPC Class and lots of points in the climb skill and a Take 10 roll, 5e says "if you have an expert mountain climber, than thats what they are, and they climb mountains expertly." It's obviously not something everyone likes, but time will tell whether it's something that proves to be a problem.

[Doug Lampert]

Yes, someone who is an Expert Mountain Climber would be someone who has both the natural talent (Stat) And has a Proficiency bonus in it (+2 or +3).
Except we know that someone of average strength who trains in climbing mountains climbs BETTER than an untrained strong guy.

Stat of +0 plus proficiency bonus needs to fairly reliably beat stat of +4 plus proficiency bonus for this to be true.

You have assumed trained == high stat + proficiency, when in fact trained can easily be average stat + actual training.

And in the real world training usually beats natural ability alone in that situation.

[hawklost]

Except we know that someone of average strength who trains in climbing mountains climbs BETTER than an untrained strong guy.

Stat of +0 plus proficiency bonus needs to fairly reliably beat stat of +4 plus proficiency bonus for this to be true.

You have assumed trained == high stat + proficiency, when in fact trained can easily be average stat + actual training.

And in the real world training usually beats natural ability alone in that situation.

I think you are making an assumption about someone who is an Expert vs someone who does something as a hobby (which could still give them prof bonuses)

I see someone as an expert as someone who probably doesn't just have Average Strength. I doubt you will find any Expert mountiain climber who is not above average in both Str and Dex (probably even STA). So you already throw out that logic of a +0.

You also seem to ignore that a +4 bonus to a Stat is pretty much Peak Human Stat (Adventurers get +5 which is the highest possible of any human(race) ever in the world). So a +4 strongman could probably climb quite well a normal mountain (assuming no requirements of Dex which the Strongman might or might not have). You could pretty much bet that the Strongman has the strength to pull himself up with an arm.

I assume that Trained = Prof. That level of training consists of people who actually know how to Climb up walls and/or mountains and have been doing it for more than a few weeks(months/years). that's the +2 bonus you get.

I assume a Naturally Talented person = High Stat. there are many many instances in the world where someone who high highly talented can pick up something they know very little about and do it well.

I assume that someone who is an Expert is someone who has trained hard for a long time (higher Prof bonus) AND probably has some natural ability (Stat of +1-2).

You could do a thought experiment here.
Look around you and choose a random person who looks completely normal on the street. Now, take that same person and train them on Rock Climbing for a few weeks, maybe a few months.

After such time, go back on the street and look for someone who looks Naturally talented (has Str and Dex bonus (I say Str AND Dex because climbing does require both even if DnD simplified it down to one). Someone like, maybe a juggler.

Now, show a the second person how to climb for only a day (no prof bonus)

Now place both those people together and let them do different basic challenges on rock Climbing. (Just going up the Rock, Climbing down, Racing up, having to get to certain locations in a certain order ect.)

You will probably notice that the person who was Naturally talented at Dex and Str related activities is almost as good or as good as the person who has been trained.

Of course, throwing either of them against an Expert or even Professional level Mountain Climber/Rock Climber and they will lose every time, but that is because an Expert is pretty much talented and trained and the Professional has a higher Proficiency bonus.

Remember, in Dnd, these are simplified rules to make things easier, DnD does not require the players to stat out what Str they are good at (are they strong but highly muscled, less strong but lean muslced ect) It is just, Str bonus = All Around Strong in any Str activity (which of course is not how the real world works)

[Human Paragon 3]

Except we know that someone of average strength who trains in climbing mountains climbs BETTER than an untrained strong guy.

Stat of +0 plus proficiency bonus needs to fairly reliably beat stat of +4 plus proficiency bonus for this to be true.

You have assumed trained == high stat + proficiency, when in fact trained can easily be average stat + actual training.

And in the real world training usually beats natural ability alone in that situation.

On the other hand, we should acknowledge how incredibly exceptional a person with a +3, 4 or 5 to their ability attribute is in this game.

Having a +2 makes you exceptional already (compared to common folk). A +4 makes you extremely rare and a +5 makes you legendary. A person with +4 or 5 strength should be able to climb any mountain, even if he's never seen one before because he's just that badass. "It's just like a hill, only bigger. No problem." A "proficient mountain climber" will likely have a +2 to his attribute anyway, making him in all likelihood as good or better than the superhuman guy at the same task.

Also, don't forget that there's no check needed to scale a mountain in this edition. Only if something threatens to knock you off, like a hurricane, or a roc or something. In this case, I could still picture an incredibly strong person being as good as a weaker proficient mountain climber at staying glued to the rock.

[Kurald Galain]

Lets look at a better scenario (in my mind)
1) A Competent Basketball player can shoot a 2 pointer
Basketball is clearly an opposed check, not a straight check. That means that if the attacker and defender are both competent, 50% is a fair figure; but if the attacker is competent and the defender is not, the attacker should be able to make a 2 pointer 95% of the time. Because that's what competence means.


So in a DnD setting, a Competent person could be someone with a +1-2 (above average in stats) or someone even with a +2 (proficiency in skill).
No. Failing three times out of five (at something anyone can do) doesn't mean you're good, it means your character is a rookie, a rank amateur, and not competent.


To be fair to D&D though, most characters are not (or aren't supposed to be, player desires not withstanding), subject matter experts.
But I'm not talking about experts. I'm talking about basic competence.


Having a +2 makes you exceptional already (compared to common folk)
The point is that by the math, it doesn't. If you can do something 60% of the time, a total average commoner can do it 50% of the time. There's nothing exceptional about that.

[hawklost]

Basketball is clearly an opposed check, not a straight check. That means that if the attacker and defender are both competent, 50% is a fair figure; but if the attacker is competent and the defender is not, the attacker should be able to make a 2 pointer 95% of the time. Because that's what competence means.


No. Failing three times out of five (at something anyone can do) doesn't mean you're good, it means your character is a rookie, a rank amateur, and not competent.


But I'm not talking about experts. I'm talking about basic competence.


The point is that by the math, it doesn't. If you can do something 60% of the time, a total average commoner can do it 50% of the time. There's nothing exceptional about that.

Sorry, I should have been more specific on the 2 pointer. I should have called it a Free throw. Which is definitely a DC check, not opposed. From what I understand, 80% success rate is only the best of the best of the Professional basketball players. So by your logic, they are only slightly above average for those top people. The normal ones seem to do it around 65-70% of the time, so the NBA players who are paid millions are just very slightly above average in your book at Free Throws and should be considered rank amateurs. I would personally call those people Experts considering that is all they focus on and are considered some of the best.

Remember, DCs are not for run of the mill crap. DCs are used when there is a chance of Failure causing problems. Stuff like, falling hurts you bad (1d6 is pretty bad considering commoner hp), or getting swept away, or not getting the deals you want on an item.... ect. It is not for when the Ranger who is an expert of climbing to climb up a rope ladder or even a tree with lots of branches, it is not for swimming in a calm river, it is not for trying to buy an item at a reasonable price.

[Human Paragon 3]

But the system isn't designed to model basketball. It's designed to model daring feats. You're not supposed to roll for every single little thing.

If two people are playing basketball, and neither are proficient in basketball, but one has a +2 dex, and the other has a +0, the DM should just let the person with +2 win. If you played out an entire game of basketball with dozens of shots on the net, the +2 guy would win.

But you would never do this. You would never play out a basketball game in D&D. You would play out combat. And in combat, what you get is:

A commoner with +0 and no proficiencies rolling a d20 against your AC which is near 20, having almost no hope of hitting you, and you, a first level fighter with +3 strength, +2 proficiency bonus, attacking an unarmored commoner with no dex bonus and few HP and beating him in less than 12 seconds.

Or you have a commoner with +0 to wisdom and no proficiencies trying to notice you, a rogue with proficiency in stealth and +3 dex, and a class feature that doubles your proficiency in stealth rolling +7 against a passive perception of +10! So you're spotted just 30% of the time, barring extenuating circumstances. That seems fine for a 1-2 level adventurer. They shouldn't succeed 100 or even 95% of the time.

If you are a truly skilled adventurer (level 10, say) you do succeed against that commoner every time. They have no hope of noticing you. How is this not a good model?

EDIT: Ninja'd in part.

[hawklost]

But the system isn't designed to model basketball. It's designed to model daring feats. You're not supposed to roll for every single little thing.

If two people are playing basketball, and neither are proficient in basketball, but one has a +2 dex, and the other has a +0, the DM should just let the person with +2 win. If you played out an entire game of basketball with dozens of shots on the net, the +2 guy would win.

But you would never do this. You would never play out a basketball game in D&D. You would play out combat. And in combat, what you get is:

A commoner with +0 and no proficiencies rolling a d20 against your AC which is near 20, having almost no hope of hitting you, and you, a first level fighter with +3 strength, +2 proficiency bonus, attacking an unarmored commoner with no dex bonus and few HP and beating him in less than 12 seconds.

Or you have a commoner with +0 to wisdom and no proficiencies trying to notice you, a rogue with proficiency in stealth and +3 dex, and a class feature that doubles your proficiency in stealth rolling +7 against a passive perception of +10! So you're spotted just 30% of the time, barring extenuating circumstances. That seems fine for a 1-2 level adventurer. They shouldn't succeed 100 or even 95% of the time.

If you are a truly skilled adventurer (level 10, say) you do succeed against that commoner every time. They have no hope of noticing you. How is this not a good model?

EDIT: Ninja'd in part.

In most of these cases are are looking at Skill checks, not combat. The argument comes out to semantics more than anything, what defines a DC and what defines someone as proficient (compared to real world items).

Kurald holds the opinion that someone who is proficient should not be able to fail a DC check 40% if the time if they don't have high Stats. Instead, they should succeed 80-90% of the time when defined as Proficient. He does not appear happy with only having a +2 bonus to +6 bonus range for Skills. (This is based on my reading of him, not direct claims from him)

I used Basketball as a real world example because I understand it enough to argue its points, not because it is the best example.

I was trying to define it only on the DC level instead of opposed checks (which is why I was attempting to use Free Throws but said the name wrong). That way the example shows a difference between something that has no consequence (practicing a Free Throw at home) and does not need a DC and one that has a consequence/Pressure (Making a Free Throw during a game). One the DM should just wave assuming the player is proficient/high Stats, the other the DM Should use a DC with a failure.

[Human Paragon 3]

Ah, I see.

On an interesting side note - 5e is the first version of D&D that lets you find a coach and practice basketball (or any other game) in your off time to gain proficiency in it. I thought that was pretty cool.

[Lokiare]

My solution would be to spread out the DCs:



Easy

Normal

Hard

Very Hard

Near Impossible



6

11

21

31

41




Then give bonuses based on that. An average person trying to do something they aren't trained or talented at should be able to do easy and normal tasks. They should have almost no chance at hard, very hard, and near impossible tasks.

A natural with no training might be able to do some hard tasks if they are lucky.

A trained person with no natural talent might be able to do some very hard tasks if they are lucky.

A trained and talented person might if they have some outside help do the near impossible.

[Human Paragon 3]

That's an interesting idea. But what task is so easy that someone with no talent or training can do it most of the time, but still difficult enough that a check should be made on an adventure?

[hawklost]

Ah, I see.

On an interesting side note - 5e is the first version of D&D that lets you find a coach and practice basketball (or any other game) in your off time to gain proficiency in it. I thought that was pretty cool.

I love that concept. I am a little sad at the Time/Cost of it though. I mean should it really take 9 months and pretty much 250 gold (which mentally I equate one gold to 100 dollars so, $25,000) just to gain basic proficiency?

Does it mean that a level 1 char (who has 250 gold somehow) who only gets a +2 should take just as long as a level 20 char who will get a +6 bonus out of it?

I would have been happier if they did a scaling system. If your prof bonus is +2 it takes this amount/long, at +6 it will take this amount/long.

[Lokiare]

That's an interesting idea. But what task is so easy that someone with no talent or training can do it most of the time, but still difficult enough that a check should be made on an adventure?

Walking in the rain while being chased by wolves while you are blind. Normally walking in the rain would be a no brainer, but you are being chased and you can't see meaning you probably have disadvantage and therefore have a chance of failing (because your bonus is +0).

[Human Paragon 3]

Walking in the rain while being chased by wolves while you are blind. Normally walking in the rain would be a no brainer, but you are being chased and you can't see meaning you probably have disadvantage and therefore have a chance of failing (because your bonus is +0).

Are you making them roll just to move? Or to escape the wolves? In which case it should be an opposed check vs. the wolves and the blindness could be modeled by disadvantage or advantage.

[hawklost]

Walking in the rain while being chased by wolves while you are blind. Normally walking in the rain would be a no brainer, but you are being chased and you can't see meaning you probably have disadvantage and therefore have a chance of failing (because your bonus is +0).

I am not sure why if you are being chased you would be walking instead of running.
I don't think having Advantage/Disadvantage should change the fact that a DC of something exists.

I feel that walking in general for a person who is Blinded would make a DC check be higher than 5 considering. the only thing in this sentance that seems to make sense for DCs would be the Blindness but I don't feel that walking in the rain would change the DC of it over the general (I can't find stuff). I could see the rain causing the Disadvantage to you though.

[Lokiare]

Are you making them roll just to move? Or to escape the wolves? In which case it should be an opposed check vs. the wolves and the blindness could be modeled by disadvantage or advantage.

Ideal balanced games don't have opposed checks due to how the math gets messed up with 2 dice. Instead they use DCs based on the bonuses of the opposed forces.

In this case their move speeds determine who catches who, but moving through the rainy area is the difficult part that requires a dex check. Try it sometime. Walk calmly through the rain in your grassy yard (or a grassy area). Then do the same while blindfolded while playing tag. You'll see what I mean.

[da_chicken]

Also, don't forget that there's no check needed to scale a mountain in this edition. Only if something threatens to knock you off, like a hurricane, or a roc or something. In this case, I could still picture an incredibly strong person being as good as a weaker proficient mountain climber at staying glued to the rock.

I'm really starting to miss the lack of DM guidelines in Basic. The playtest details pretty clearly that you only roll ability checks when there's a significant chance of failure for the character and when you think it's worth the time it takes for the game rules to interrupt the game. It literally says, "When a player wants to take an action, it's often appropriate to just let the action succeed." There's an entire sidebar titled "Using These DCs" that's longer than the entire description of Ability Check DCs in Basic.

If you look at the list of things that you should roll Athletics for, they're all things that I would place above DC 20 in 3.x. The fact that the DC table just lists the term for the DC and the target number, and doesn't explain what each one represents is pretty bad. The playtest describe DC 20 ("Hard") as "beyond the capabilities of most people without some aid or exceptional ability". DC 20 is already semi-heroic in 5e. In 3.x DC 20 is described as "challenging". Looking at the bonuses players can actually get, it's pretty obvious that the DC scaling for skills had to change. Heck, a 1st level PCs in 3e could get +9 to a trained, on-attribute ability, and will often have +12 by level 2. Higher if they have racial bonuses. You get +5 at 1st in 5e, and never get to +12 without magic. Comparing 5e skills to 3.x DCs is obviously flawed. We have to adjust our expectations for DCs downward.

The "Using These DCs" sidebar is fantastic because it tells you exactly how to play it:


If you have decided that an ability check is called for, then clearly it's not a trivial task -- you can eliminate DC 5.

Then ask yourself: "Is it easy, moderate, or hard?" If the only DCs you ever use are 10, 15, and 20, your game will run just fine.

If you find yourself thinking, "Well, it's really hard," then you can go up to the higher DCs, but do so with caution and consider the level of the characters.

[...]

Here's another secret: You don't actually have to set the DC before the player rolls the ability check. Decide whether the character succeeds based on the check result. You'll probably find that your gut feeling (and the player's) squares pretty well with the set DCs presented here. A number below 10 is never going to make it unless the task is trivially simple. A number in the low teens is good enough for an easy task. A number in the high teens will succeed at a moderate task. And when a player rolls a 20 or better, there's usually little question that the character succeeds.

I don't know about a lot of you, but this is how pretty much every DM I play under runs their games for ad hoc skill checks in 3.x. (And yes, it breaks down horribly at higher levels.) The fact that it's codified this way now is fantastic. I will shoot someone in the face if this sidebar doesn't make it into the DMG.

I'm sure people here will flip tables about it, but to me it's just codifying how we've always wanted to run the game.

[Lokiare]

I am not sure why if you are being chased you would be walking instead of running.
I don't think having Advantage/Disadvantage should change the fact that a DC of something exists.

I feel that walking in general for a person who is Blinded would make a DC check be higher than 5 considering. the only thing in this sentance that seems to make sense for DCs would be the Blindness but I don't feel that walking in the rain would change the DC of it over the general (I can't find stuff). I could see the rain causing the Disadvantage to you though.

Well according to the rules you shouldn't have to roll for a DC under 10 unless there is a chance for failure. So a DC of 6 for walking in the rain is perfectly fine. Since you don't normally roll for it. The DC doesn't go up because of penalties on the character. DC's go up when something in the environment outside makes it more difficult (since walking is a DC of 1 it went up to 6 for the rain for instance). Now the character is directly affected by the blindness so they have disadvantage on their dexterity check. Since their total bonuses don't go above +0 they have a chance of failure, which is why they roll. The fact they are being chased (and walking because they know the wolves would overrun them and kill them instantly if they show any sign of weakness such as running) causes it to not be an automatic success.

[da_chicken]

Walking in the rain while being chased by wolves while you are blind. Normally walking in the rain would be a no brainer, but you are being chased and you can't see meaning you probably have disadvantage and therefore have a chance of failing (because your bonus is +0).

I would model this as having the player make Dex saves every so often. The difficulty isn't the walking. It's recovering from when you trip.

[hawklost]

Ideal balanced games don't have opposed checks due to how the math gets messed up with 2 dice. Instead they use DCs based on the bonuses of the opposed forces.

In this case their move speeds determine who catches who, but moving through the rainy area is the difficult part that requires a dex check. Try it sometime. Walk calmly through the rain in your grassy yard (or a grassy area). Then do the same while blindfolded while playing tag. You'll see what I mean.

I personally have never had an issue walking in the rain. High winds, sometimes, but just general rain? not at all. Now, when you blind someone (or blindfold), I am pretty sure that the rain is not what is causing the person to need a DC check. again, I feel that wandering around an unknown area with any speed would require a Blinded person to make some checks, sure. Rain causing disadvantage in this case? sure. But just moving in the rain requiring a Dex check? No way.

As for your claim on opposed checks getting messed up, I feel that make no sense what-so-ever. Lets use a Chase scene. Person A is Fast normally but does not know an area. Person be is Slow but knows the area decently well. If person A is fleeing Person B, Person A requires checks to figure out the fastest route for them (Roll Dice for A). Person B on the other hand cannot normally catch A because of A's speed. Person B requires taking shortcuts or getting lucky that person A get slowed down by things (Roll Dice for B knowing the area).

EDIT: In both A's and B's cases, the check is used to gain advantage over the other. A needs to move fast in unknown terrain, B needs to use the terrain to gain speed on A. If A fails by going in circles, B will catch him most likely. If B thinks a path will get him to A faster but instead it curves a different way, then A will probably get away.

If instead you did a DC check then the DM must now figure out how much the speed of A give over B, how much the knowledge of B gets over A and then make an arbitrary DC that either A or B must beat.

both styles are fully viable. Neither one is better than the other. Claiming one is better is just a person liking their system over a different system.

[Lokiare]

I'm really starting to miss the lack of DM guidelines in Basic. The playtest details pretty clearly that you only roll ability checks when there's a significant chance of failure for the character and when you think it's worth the time it takes for the game rules to interrupt the game. It literally says, "When a player wants to take an action, it's often appropriate to just let the action succeed." There's an entire sidebar titled "Using These DCs" that's longer than the entire description of Ability Check DCs in Basic.

If you look at the list of things that you should roll Athletics for, they're all things that I would place above DC 20 in 3.x. The fact that the DC table just lists the term for the DC and the target number, and doesn't explain what each one represents is pretty bad. The playtest describe DC 20 ("Hard") as "beyond the capabilities of most people without some aid or exceptional ability". DC 20 is already semi-heroic in 5e. In 3.x DC 20 is described as "challenging". Looking at the bonuses players can actually get, it's pretty obvious that the DC scaling for skills had to change. Heck, a 1st level PCs in 3e could get +9 to a trained, on-attribute ability, and will often have +12 by level 2. Higher if they have racial bonuses. You get +5 at 1st in 5e, and never get to +12 without magic. Comparing 5e skills to 3.x DCs is obviously flawed. We have to adjust our expectations for DCs downward.

The "Using These DCs" sidebar is fantastic because it tells you exactly how to play it:

This part isn't that bad, but I personally would rather have a comparison chart:

Tougher than steel: DC 30
About as hard as iron: DC 25
About as hard as stone: DC 20
About as hard as wood: DC 10
About as hard as glass: DC5

Then the DC doesn't vary too much from table to table.


I don't know about a lot of you, but this is how pretty much every DM I play under runs their games for ad hoc skill checks in 3.x. (And yes, it breaks down horribly at higher levels.) The fact that it's codified this way now is fantastic. I will shoot someone in the face if this sidebar doesn't make it into the DMG.

I'm sure people here will flip tables about it, but to me it's just codifying how we've always wanted to run the game.

This part is pure rubbish though. It telling you to throw out any bonuses and penalties and DCs and just use a d20 to decide. You might as well stop using dice and flip a coin at that point. Which of course invalidates any resources the player put into their character toward that check.

[Doug Lampert]

Sorry, I should have been more specific on the 2 pointer. I should have called it a Free throw. Which is definitely a DC check, not opposed. From what I understand, 80% success rate is only the best of the best of the Professional basketball players.
I am, an utterly and complete physical incompetent. Seriously, in highschool whether to take me or the host's 11 year old little sister for pickup games was a serious question.

I could hit 60%+ on freethrows. Because I practiced them some.
The best pros hit 90% or so on freethrows (Larry Bird say). Because they practiced them a lot.

The typical pro hits about 50% on free throws because most pros DO NOT PRACTICE free throws all that much.

So your choices are:
1) I was some sort of awesome prodigy at free throw shooting and better than the pros despite being an incompetent at pretty well every other physical activity.
2) Practice matters MUCH MUCH more than natural ability, and can make a MUCH MUCH bigger than 10% difference in a task like this.

Seriously, practice matters MUCH more than native ability for almost all tasks.

[Lokiare]

I personally have never had an issue walking in the rain. High winds, sometimes, but just general rain? not at all. Now, when you blind someone (or blindfold), I am pretty sure that the rain is not what is causing the person to need a DC check. again, I feel that wandering around an unknown area with any speed would require a Blinded person to make some checks, sure. Rain causing disadvantage in this case? sure. But just moving in the rain requiring a Dex check? No way.

As for your claim on opposed checks getting messed up, I feel that make no sense what-so-ever. Lets use a Chase scene. Person A is Fast normally but does not know an area. Person be is Slow but knows the area decently well. If person A is fleeing Person B, Person A requires checks to figure out the fastest route for them (Roll Dice for A). Person B on the other hand cannot normally catch A because of A's speed. Person B requires taking shortcuts or getting lucky that person A get slowed down by things (Roll Dice for B knowing the area).

EDIT: In both A's and B's cases, the check is used to gain advantage over the other. A needs to move fast in unknown terrain, B needs to use the terrain to gain speed on A. If A fails by going in circles, B will catch him most likely. If B thinks a path will get him to A faster but instead it curves a different way, then A will probably get away.

If instead you did a DC check then the DM must now figure out how much the speed of A give over B, how much the knowledge of B gets over A and then make an arbitrary DC that either A or B must beat.

both styles are fully viable. Neither one is better than the other. Claiming one is better is just a person liking their system over a different system.

No, sorry. I'm talking mathematically. It has nothing to do with the actual skills or situation. Roll two dice and then comparing them (with bonuses and penalties) doubles the swingyness of an already swingy check to the point that the bonuses we have matter none at all. 4E recognized this and in its later errata got rid of opposed checks altogether and instead targeted defenses.

In 5E they could easily do this by having the base DC set to 10 and then adding the opponents bonuses to it.

13th Age does something similar. Instead of rolling opposed checks you roll against the DC of the target's environment. If Goblins are usually found in a champion tier environment then when you try to oppose a goblin you roll against the champion DC.

[Kurald Galain]

Sorry, I should have been more specific on the 2 pointer. I should have called it a Free throw. Which is definitely a DC check, not opposed. From what I understand, 80% success rate is only the best of the best of the Professional basketball players.
Ok, so would you consider this an average task? Can an average joe nobody do it 50% of the time? I'm willing to bet the answer is "no".

[hawklost]

I am, an utterly and complete physical incompetent. Seriously, in highschool whether to take me or the host's 11 year old little sister for pickup games was a serious question.

I could hit 60%+ on freethrows. Because I practiced them some.
The best pros hit 90% or so on freethrows (Larry Bird say). Because they practiced them a lot.

The typical pro hits about 50% on free throws because most pros DO NOT PRACTICE free throws all that much.

So your choices are:
1) I was some sort of awesome prodigy at free throw shooting and better than the pros despite being an incompetent at pretty well every other physical activity.
2) Practice matters MUCH MUCH more than natural ability, and can make a MUCH MUCH bigger than 10% difference in a task like this.

Seriously, practice matters MUCH more than native ability for almost all tasks.

OR, you were not under pressure since the games did not matter. As such, the DC for your Free Throws are much lower than that of someone like a Pro in a real game. I can bet that if you were to look for someone during your high school time who did not practice Free Throws but who was very athletic to begin (and did at least know how to do a Free Throw) with that they would be able to make almost as many Free Throws with the same requirements you did.

And I can also bet that if you were to challenge one of the Basketball players from your High School during the same time period, they would be better at the Free throw shots than you. They probably have more talent than you And practice it.

There are people in the world who could probably throw just as many Free Throws as you without ever practicing it. Thats what NATURAL ABILITY means. Considering a +1 on a Stat in DnD means the person is very naturally skills and a +3 is a Rare person indeed and a +4 is the best 'normal' people in the world would have (remember, only PCs should have +5 and it is almost Legendary stats). that means that yes, Practice means much much more than a NORMAL natural talent.

Normal Talent = +1 Maybe (rarely) a +2 in Stat
Exceptional Talent = +2-3 in Stat
Height of human talent = +4 in stat
Effectively Legendary Talent = +5 in stat

Now lets look at Proficiency
Practices every Day = +2 (already up to high level talented people or Exceptionally talented person)
Has been practicing for years = +3-4
Is considered an Expert/Master/Guru of the craft = +5
Legendary Skill = +6

Now lets combine these two.

Someone Talented/Exceptionally Talented is equal to someone who practices every day but has no real talent (some better, some worse)
Someone Talented and Practices +3- (rarely)4 which is equal to someone who practices for years
Someone Exceptionally Talented And Practices every day = +4-5 (beats out most people practicing for years because of their Talent)

This seems reasonable to me. It shows that Hard work is Better than Natural Talent but it does not claim (like 3.x did) that hard work far far surpasses Natural Talent.

Also, pulling Data quickly from online, it says average College players do 69% during games http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/04/sports/basketball/04freethrow.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 . The Top 100 pros have around 88% it seems.

[hawklost]

Ok, so would you consider this an average task? Can an average joe nobody do it 50% of the time? I'm willing to bet the answer is "no".

Average Task? Sure, most people who know how to shoot can get the ball in pretty easily 50%. Those of us who have no talent in shooting miss more often (sorry, most Nerds/Geeks would be considered to have a 8 or lower in Dex, Not a 10 and no interest in practicing to get better).

Again, DnD is NOT A PERFECT REPRESENTATION OF LIFE. It give general rules that can be followed by a DM and players. It does not say "This is how Average Joe Nobody would consider this". It is more saying, For an Average PC these are the challenges.

Let me ask you this. In all your years of DnD, has the DM ever required you to roll for a DC 5 check? I mean, unless you are extremely weak in your Stat (sorry min/maxers, a -3 to a stat means more DC checks for you on some things in my opinion). I personally have never had a DC 5 check thrown at me, the DM just assumes we can do those kind of things. Now, a DC 10 check? Yea, and we can fail those pretty often too if we are average stated and no training in it.

Do you think an Average Joe Nobody should be able to calm an Angry Ox with a DC 10 check even 50% of the time? Or how about Average Joe Nobody even being able to climb a 10 foot wall (I know I would have a challenge doing this even if I was given all the time in the world to try).

[1337 b4k4]

My solution would be to spread out the DCs:



Easy

Normal

Hard

Very Hard

Near Impossible



6

11

21

31

41




Then give bonuses based on that. An average person trying to do something they aren't trained or talented at should be able to do easy and normal tasks. They should have almost no chance at hard, very hard, and near impossible tasks.

A natural with no training might be able to do some hard tasks if they are lucky.

A trained person with no natural talent might be able to do some very hard tasks if they are lucky.

A trained and talented person might if they have some outside help do the near impossible.

The problems with this are two fold, one solvable, one not.

Solvable problem 1 is that this requires using a different bonus / scaling / resolution system than d20 + bonus. This is of course fixable, but it does violate WotC's (IMHO misguided) goal of one mechanic to rule them all. It also requires an "all the things" skills list as someone who's good at basketball is not necessarily good at baseball (hello Michael Jordan) and someone who's good at animal handling isn't necessarily good at animal riding. By establishing DCs this way, we are implicitly acknowledging a desire to strongly filter out differences in abilities, that necessitates strongly differentiating abilities (and thereby, being more granular than ability scores + ~20 general proficiencies [admittedly, decks of cards is not a very general proficiency])

Unsolvable problem 2 is that this completely negates a stated goal in 5e which is to have a bounded system wherein every player always has a (implied reasonable) chance to accomplish almost any task set before them. They explicitly wanted to eliminate "You must be this tall to play" skill checks and challenges for players. In a sense, they were intentionally discarding simulation for a gameist contstruct. If your goal in a system is not to accomplish what 5e's goal was, then this isn't a problem, but clearly such a system violates the current design intent.


Ok, so would you consider this an average task? Can an average joe nobody do it 50% of the time? I'm willing to bet the answer is "no".

Eh, I would think that once the basic motions of it are down, the average joe nobody could hit free throws ~50% of the time. It's basically a stationary form of the children's game HORSE and well... it's a children's game.



Also, pulling Data quickly from online, it says average College players do 69% during games http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/04/sports/basketball/04freethrow.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 . The Top 100 pros have around 88% it seems.

So just to put this into D&D terms:

College Player ~= Level 5 Basketball player with DEX 15 and Basketball Proficiency: Gives us +2 from DEX and +3 proficiency.
Top 100 Pro Player ~= Level 15 Basketball player with DEX 18 and Basketball Proficiency: Gives us +4 from DEX and +5 proficiency or an improvement over the college student of 20%.

[Kurald Galain]

Average Task? Sure, most people who know how to shoot can get the ball in pretty easily 50%.

Read what you just said. People who know how, meaning they're trained and competent, can do it 50%. Meaning it's not an average task.

[Sartharina]

If a person was extremely Dexterous and could toss a ball into the net 85% of the time (+3) already but never ever practiced shooting hoops and instead went around doing long distance running (gaining proficiency in this) would they ever really get better at shooting hoops?
The answer is pretty much No, not unless they gain more natural Dexterity. They aren't training themselves in Shooting hoops so of course they won't really get better. On the other hand, even if they were not naturally gifted at long distance running, over time they would become better and better at it becuase they are working at it.

That is how I see proficiency. You must Work for your proficiency, not just gain it without even trying. (No partial increases in skills/saves for none-proficiency)

The problem here is that you assume the person stops putting effort into shooting hoops. In D&D Next, it's assumed you're ALWAYS improving the skills that make up your core, defining competency (The skills you're proficient in). It's just tied to level instead of a point-buy system.
Read what you just said. People who know how, meaning they're trained and competent, can do it 50%. Meaning it's not an average task.No. It's an average task. By "Trained and Competent", we mean "NBA Player", not "Guy playing HORSE with some friends" Guy playing HORSE with friends is untrained and mediocre competence.

[hawklost]

Read what you just said. People who know how, meaning they're trained and competent, can do it 50%. Meaning it's not an average task.

I know how to shoot a gun, I know which end the bullet comes out of and how to load/unload it. In no way shape or form would I claim that I am trained and competent in shooting. Heck, I even had a few classes on it, I would still not consider myself trained and competent.

I know how to ride a horse without falling off when it is walking and going up/down small hills. I know how to get on the horse and off without falling down. I am not considered trained and competent in riding a horse, if it started galloping some distance or tried to pull away from my control or even started jumping things, I would be at a loss.

I understand the Concept of how to do a great deal of things (So I know How to do them). That does not mean I could claim to be competent in them.

The game sets the Basic Proficiency level for you. It specifically calls out those who are Proficient in something as people who have dedicated a lot of time and effort to the thing. In this case, 250 days with 8 hours each day.

[1337 b4k4]

Read what you just said. People who know how, meaning they're trained and competent, can do it 50%. Meaning it's not an average task.

Well, now we're splitting hairs on "trained and competent" You can teach a 10 year old kid "how" to throw free throws. By your statement here, that makes them "trained and competent".

[hawklost]

The problem here is that you assume the person stops putting effort into shooting hoops. In D&D Next, it's assumed you're ALWAYS improving the skills that make up your core, defining competency (The skills you're proficient in). It's just tied to level instead of a point-buy system.

I am not assuming anything like that actually. I am have even put in a list farther up that explains my reasoning for different skill level. It marks it as people doing hard work getting better (leveling up a character is how DnD works for this). It is assumed that someone who is proficient at something is always practicing it in their spare time. That is also how you explain gaining Stat increases (or Feats). The person continues to practice Off Scene.

Here is my concept of Talent vs Practice

Normal Talent = +1 Maybe (rarely) a +2 in Stat
Exceptional Talent = +2-3 in Stat
Height of human talent = +4 in stat
Effectively Legendary Talent = +5 in stat

Now lets look at Proficiency
Practices every Day = +2 (already up to high level talented people or Exceptionally talented person)
Has been practicing for years = +3-4
Is considered an Expert/Master/Guru of the craft = +5
Legendary Skill = +6

[Kurald Galain]

By "Trained and Competent", we mean "NBA Player"
Then you've completely missed my point. An NBA player is an expert and is several steps beyond just competent.

Let's try this again:

(1) Definition: an average task is something that (under stress) an average person can do erratically, or about 50% of the time. For example, I've shot a bow a few times IRL, and I sometimes hit the target and sometimes I don't (note that I mean the whole target, not the bullseye).
(2) Definition: a competent person can perform an average task consistently, even under stress; e.g. a competent archer will reliably hit the target. For the sake of playability, I'll accept 95% as the threshold for consistency, although I feel it should be higher.
(3) This can apply to any RPG, but mapping this to D&D we get DC 10 for an average task, +0 as the modifier for an average person, and +8 as the mark of competency. I don't see how it could possibly be unbalancing for a hero to be competent. We're not talking Olympic level sports here, nor any particular kind of high genius, just basic competency.

Query: at what level can a character be competent at a task?

(answer: pretty much every serious role playing game allows characters to be competent right from the beginning, but in 5E you need 8-13 levels first)


Normal Talent = +1 Maybe (rarely) a +2 in Stat
Exceptional Talent = +2-3 in Stat
So you're saying that an exceptional person is 5% or maybe 10% better than a normal person. And yet in real life I know plenty of people who are way, way better than that.

It doesn't bode well for a "heroic fantasy" if the characters therein are so much weaker than people in real life.

[Human Paragon 3]

Then you've completely missed my point. An NBA player is an expert and is several steps beyond just competent.

Let's try this again:

(1) Definition: an average task is something that (under stress) an average person can do erratically, or about 50% of the time. For example, I've shot a bow a few times IRL, and I sometimes hit the target and sometimes I don't (note that I mean the whole target, not the bullseye).
(2) Definition: a competent person can perform an average task consistently, even under stress; e.g. a competent archer will reliably hit the target. For the sake of playability, I'll accept 95% as the threshold for consistency, although I feel it should be higher.
(3) This can apply to any RPG, but mapping this to D&D we get DC 10 for an average task, +0 as the modifier for an average person, and +8 as the mark of competency. I don't see how it could possibly be unbalancing for a hero to be competent. We're not talking Olympic level sports here, nor any particular kind of high genius, just basic competency.

Query: at what level can a character be competent at a task?

(answer: pretty much every serious role playing game allows characters to be competent right from the beginning, but in 5E you need 8-13 levels first)


So you're saying that an exceptional person is 5% or maybe 10% better than a normal person. And yet in real life I know plenty of people who are way, way better than that.

It doesn't bode well for a "heroic fantasy" if the characters therein are so much weaker than people in real life.


One thing that these vanilla comparisons lacks is the idea of hit points, inspiration, and class features. Adventurers distinguish themselves in many ways other than bonuses to skill checks.

[hawklost]

So you're saying that an exceptional person is 5% or maybe 10% better than a normal person. And yet in real life I know plenty of people who are way, way better than that.

It doesn't bode well for a "heroic fantasy" if the characters therein are so much weaker than people in real life.

In this Fantasy World where DnD resides? Yes, that is what I am saying. If you do not like it, you could always change the rules. If you hate the concept of a Bounded world that WotC has created for us. You are more than willing to convince your group you play with to go with completely different ideas.

Like:
- None Heroes/Villians are effectively minions (from 4e) and have disadvantage on all skill checks
- For heroes, your Stat Modifier is equal to your Stat instead of this +1-5 it is now a +3 (min stat to move) to +20
- Get rid of all Skill checks and let the DM arbitrate it
- Heroes always get advantage on skill checks (if somehow they would get Advantage from Dnd circumstances, they get a third die)

There are many ways for you personally to change the game to your liking. But please, don't try to force your ideas into the Core books. I might not agree with everything 5e does, but if I have a problem, I will talk with my DM (or if I am a DM, my players) to change it. These rules were created to work with other rules WoTC plans on releasing (and the concepts they have about rules). You trying to say they are wrong because you don't like them.

[1337 b4k4]

Let's try this again:

(1) Definition: an average task is something that (under stress) an average person can do erratically, or about 50% of the time. For example, I've shot a bow a few times IRL, and I sometimes hit the target and sometimes I don't (note that I mean the whole target, not the bullseye).
(2) Definition: a competent person can perform an average task consistently, even under stress; e.g. a competent archer will reliably hit the target. For the sake of playability, I'll accept 95% as the threshold for consistency, although I feel it should be higher.
(3) This can apply to any RPG, but mapping this to D&D we get DC 10 for an average task, +0 as the modifier for an average person, and +8 as the mark of competency. I don't see how it could possibly be unbalancing for a hero to be competent. We're not talking Olympic level sports here, nor any particular kind of high genius, just basic competency.

Query: at what level can a character be competent at a task?

(answer: pretty much every serious role playing game allows characters to be competent right from the beginning, but in 5E you need 8-13 levels first)

This goes back to the old question of "What should D&D's skill system model? Should it be designed to model all possible ranges of all possible people performing all possible tasks? Or should it be more limited in scope. The 5e model for D&D appears to limit the scope considerably to "modeling tasks for competent adventurers". That is, the DC of average assumes you already have the competency to be making the check at a 50% chance of success. For things your players are "competent" compared to the average person in (95% success per your definition) the system declines to model this. For example, the example adventure notes that a sack of treasure hidden in a cistern is immediately discoverable by your players simply for engaging with the cistern in a way that would cause it to be found (poking with a stick). That assumes 95% competence (finding hidden treasures) from your characters when they're engaging in activities they should be competent in (actively probing for hidden treasures where a treasure is hidden). They also can find the treasure by attribute check, representing the "over and above a normal person" chance of your characters simply finding the treasure by doing a simple study of the cistern.

[Kurald Galain]

This goes back to the old question of "What should D&D's skill system model? Should it be designed to model all possible ranges of all possible people performing all possible tasks? Or should it be more limited in scope. The 5e model for D&D appears to limit the scope considerably to "modeling tasks for competent adventurers". That is, the DC of average assumes you already have the competency to be making the check at a 50% chance of success. For things your players are "competent" compared to the average person in (95% success per your definition) the system declines to model this.

Your comparison fails to work the moment that one of the PCs is competent at something and another is not.

If one PC is good at swimming and the other is not, they nonetheless have almost the same success rates for any task related to swimming (except if the competent character is both strength-primary and very high level).

[da_chicken]

This part is pure rubbish though. It telling you to throw out any bonuses and penalties and DCs and just use a d20 to decide. You might as well stop using dice and flip a coin at that point. Which of course invalidates any resources the player put into their character toward that check.

Where are you reading that the player doesn't get his bonus? It's telling you to determine the check result first. If they want to jump across a non-trivial crevasse, have them roll. Did they get an 8? That's a failure. Did they get a 23? They make it easily. Sure, there are some rolls that make this method less useful like a 14, but even then you'll get an idea based on your own gut reaction and the body language of the table whether or not it's a success. You and the table will say, "A 14? Hm, it's probably closer to the hard side to jump over 15 feet... I don't think you make it to the far ledge." These are ad hoc ability checks and you're already eyeballing the DC. You wet your finger, stick it in the air and make a call about the DC. Does it matter if you do it before or after the die roll?

While it makes you (╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻ I call it intuitive DMing. Haven't you ever had to work out a complex DC like 3.x jumping distance, then had the player roll and they get a natural 2 or a natural 20 and render the last 10 minutes useless? Just skip to the important bit: roll the check and use the result to determine what happens. You were already doing that anyways.

[Lokiare]

The problems with this are two fold, one solvable, one not.

Solvable problem 1 is that this requires using a different bonus / scaling / resolution system than d20 + bonus. This is of course fixable, but it does violate WotC's (IMHO misguided) goal of one mechanic to rule them all. It also requires an "all the things" skills list as someone who's good at basketball is not necessarily good at baseball (hello Michael Jordan) and someone who's good at animal handling isn't necessarily good at animal riding. By establishing DCs this way, we are implicitly acknowledging a desire to strongly filter out differences in abilities, that necessitates strongly differentiating abilities (and thereby, being more granular than ability scores + ~20 general proficiencies [admittedly, decks of cards is not a very general proficiency])

Yes, I created that chart with the implicit assumption that they would adjust the bonuses to match it. So that a talented expert would have a chance at the nearly impossible but an unskilled beginner would not.


Unsolvable problem 2 is that this completely negates a stated goal in 5e which is to have a bounded system wherein every player always has a (implied reasonable) chance to accomplish almost any task set before them. They explicitly wanted to eliminate "You must be this tall to play" skill checks and challenges for players. In a sense, they were intentionally discarding simulation for a gameist contstruct. If your goal in a system is not to accomplish what 5e's goal was, then this isn't a problem, but clearly such a system violates the current design intent.

Yes and I find this nonsensical because they violated that goal the moment they put vancian casters with spells like spider climb and knock in the game. Some players have a reasonable chance to do things, others are automatically successful.

How about we stick you in a geneticists lab and tell you to create a GMO corn that resists bugs*. Unless you are a well trained geneticist with lots of experience and talent you are not going to succeed. If we hand an untrained clumsy climber some climbing tools and send them up mount everest, more than likely they will die and even if they don't they certainly won't succeed. So this whole idea of 'everyone should have a chance at everything' is pure nonsense.

*This assumes you are not a competent geneticist with years of experience.


In this Fantasy World where DnD resides? Yes, that is what I am saying. If you do not like it, you could always change the rules. If you hate the concept of a Bounded world that WotC has created for us. You are more than willing to convince your group you play with to go with completely different ideas.

Like:
- None Heroes/Villians are effectively minions (from 4e) and have disadvantage on all skill checks
- For heroes, your Stat Modifier is equal to your Stat instead of this +1-5 it is now a +3 (min stat to move) to +20
- Get rid of all Skill checks and let the DM arbitrate it
- Heroes always get advantage on skill checks (if somehow they would get Advantage from Dnd circumstances, they get a third die)

There are many ways for you personally to change the game to your liking. But please, don't try to force your ideas into the Core books. I might not agree with everything 5e does, but if I have a problem, I will talk with my DM (or if I am a DM, my players) to change it. These rules were created to work with other rules WoTC plans on releasing (and the concepts they have about rules). You trying to say they are wrong because you don't like them.

Sorry, as long as WotC keeps parroting the line about 5E being for all players of previous editions we are going to continue to point out where it doesn't allow our play styles and one of the components of many play styles is the ability to outclass other characters at a task.

[Sartharina]

Then you've completely missed my point. An NBA player is an expert and is several steps beyond just competent.

Let's try this again:

(1) Definition: an average task is something that (under stress) an average person can do erratically, or about 50% of the time. For example, I've shot a bow a few times IRL, and I sometimes hit the target and sometimes I don't (note that I mean the whole target, not the bullseye).
(2) Definition: a competent person can perform an average task consistently, even under stress; e.g. a competent archer will reliably hit the target. For the sake of playability, I'll accept 95% as the threshold for consistency, although I feel it should be higher.
(3) This can apply to any RPG, but mapping this to D&D we get DC 10 for an average task, +0 as the modifier for an average person, and +8 as the mark of competency. I don't see how it could possibly be unbalancing for a hero to be competent. We're not talking Olympic level sports here, nor any particular kind of high genius, just basic competency.

1. The "Average Person" we're talking about is an exceptional adventurer who happens to not have exceptional training or talent for it.
Average athleticism = A wizard that finds himself having to run from big ugly monsters or vengeful mobs, scrabble up trees and cliffs, and falls into running rivers and pools, not a commoner who has never left moved faster than a brisk walk on his way to the market.
Average knowledge - A mercenary fighter who travels the world, stumbles across ancient secrets, faces down exotic creatures, and deals with problems from the past. Not a completely uneducated villager who's never left his farm.
Average stealth - A mercenary fighter or wizard who lays ambushes for monsters, and understands the value of not announcing your presence in a dungeon. Not a common villager.
Average investigation - A standard murderhobo who ransacks places for any scrap of loot or clues he can find.
Average perception - Someone who spends a great deal of time on the road enjoying the scenery, and wary of ambushes.
etc.

2. Any system that has a 95% successful resolution rate is a waste of paper.

[Sartharina]

How about we stick you in a geneticists lab and tell you to create a GMO corn that resists bugs*. Unless you are a well trained geneticist with lots of experience and talent you are not going to succeed. If we hand an untrained clumsy climber some climbing tools and send them up mount everest, more than likely they will die and even if they don't they certainly won't succeed. So this whole idea of 'everyone should have a chance at everything' is pure nonsense.

Creating a GMO that resists bugs is something not handled by the resolution system. Not falling out of a tree when orcs start shooting at you is. As is happening to know that Gold Dragons can change shape and like to pass as human nobles. Creating a bug-resistant breed of corn requires a trait, not a skill.

Put that clumsy climber in a chain-link pen and see how fast he gets over the wall when you release a few wild dogs into it.

[Human Paragon 3]

Yeah, that would be covered by a background feature. Genetic engineering is something that no untrained person can do, so there's no point in giving it a DC.

[Lokiare]

Where are you reading that the player doesn't get his bonus? It's telling you to determine the check result first. If they want to jump across a non-trivial crevasse, have them roll. Did they get an 8? That's a failure. Did they get a 23? They make it easily. Sure, there are some rolls that make this method less useful like a 14, but even then you'll get an idea based on your own gut reaction and the body language of the table whether or not it's a success. You and the table will say, "A 14? Hm, it's probably closer to the hard side to jump over 15 feet... I don't think you make it to the far ledge." These are ad hoc ability checks and you're already eyeballing the DC. You wet your finger, stick it in the air and make a call about the DC. Does it matter if you do it before or after the die roll?

While it makes you (╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻ I call it intuitive DMing. Haven't you ever had to work out a complex DC like 3.x jumping distance, then had the player roll and they get a natural 2 or a natural 20 and render the last 10 minutes useless? Just skip to the important bit: roll the check and use the result to determine what happens. You were already doing that anyways.

Sorry no. Because most people don't instinctively know math this method encourages complete randomness.

Without actually doing the math which of these two would result in a bigger number?

(4 * 1.3 + 16 - 12) / 3.14

or

((1 / 3 + 1) * (5 - 1) -12 + 16) / (1 + 1 + 1 + 0.14)

Now do the math.

Now lets apply that to D&D:

Player rolls a modified total of 20 and starts cheering. The DM says "well that probably is a success".

Then the DM does the math:
Its a moderate challenge DC 15, but the character is in the dark and can't see so the DC goes to 17. Then the DM realizes the surface is slick (the character is climbing) so he raises it to 19. Then the DM realizes the character doesn't have the proper tools and the DC goes to 24. Oops the character failed.

I mean in the interest of keeping things going this is a decent mechanic, but it throws any underlying math off by a mile in most circumstance.

[hawklost]

Sorry, as long as WotC keeps parroting the line about 5E being for all players of previous editions we are going to continue to point out where it doesn't allow our play styles and one of the components of many play styles is the ability to outclass other characters at a task.

Does that mean that you get upset when an advertisement says

"Fun for all Ages" and your Great Grandparent who can barely move outside the home doesn't seem to enjoy it? Or
"The whole family can enjoy" and you and your 2 month old sibling seem to not be enjoying it as much as others? Or
"Best Burgers in Town" and you can make better ones at home? Or
"Just like a good neighbor, State Farm is there" and unlike your neighbor when you ask them to go to a barbecue, they don't? Or
"Take my hundred dollar knife, yours for only $4.99" and find out that the knife was sold for 100 dollars before but really only worth 20? Or
"If we don't have it, you don't need it." and you find you need something random that they did not have? Or
"You're gonna like the way you look. I guarantee it." and since you have such a bad image problem you STILL don't like the way you look?

Do you rant and rave and demand that you get what you want? (Note, these advertisements are all real)

Edit: 5e DnD doesn't let me build a super powered Epic level character who can create and destroy planes on a whim or fight and kill Gods. Does that mean I should throw a tantrum about it? (And yes, with the Epic Level Handbook, you could do that crap)

[Human Paragon 3]

Sorry no. Because most people don't instinctively know math this method encourages complete randomness.

Without actually doing the math which of these two would result in a bigger number?

(4 * 1.3 + 16 - 12) / 3.14

or

((1 / 3 + 1) * (5 - 1) -12 + 16) / (1 + 1 + 1 + 0.14)

Now do the math.

Now lets apply that to D&D:

Player rolls a modified total of 20 and starts cheering. The DM says "well that probably is a success".

Then the DM does the math:
Its a moderate challenge DC 15, but the character is in the dark and can't see so the DC goes to 17. Then the DM realizes the surface is slick (the character is climbing) so he raises it to 19. Then the DM realizes the character doesn't have the proper tools and the DC goes to 24. Oops the character failed.

I mean in the interest of keeping things going this is a decent mechanic, but it throws any underlying math off by a mile in most circumstance.

Some would say that this is an example of the rules getting in the way of the fun. The sidebar we're talking about is a looser style of play, one that many people use and prefer.

PC: "I want to climb onto the giant ant's back and ride it like a horse!"

DM: "OK... uh... make an animal handling check. With disadvantage."

PC: "21!"

DM: "Realy? Wow, OK! You're riding the ant like a horse! You can make it go left, right, forward or stop as a bonus action each turn."

Nobody looked up DCs or went over any rules, or calculated a bunch of modifiers.

[Sartharina]

Now lets apply that to D&D:

Player rolls a modified total of 20 and starts cheering. The DM says "well that probably is a success".

Then the DM does the math:
Its a moderate challenge DC 15, but the character is in the dark and can't see so the DC goes to 17. Then the DM realizes the surface is slick (the character is climbing) so he raises it to 19. Then the DM realizes the character doesn't have the proper tools and the DC goes to 24. Oops the character failed.

I mean in the interest of keeping things going this is a decent mechanic, but it throws any underlying math off y a mile in most circumstance.And... you screw up on the "Do the math" part. It's a moderate challenge, DC 15. Maybe a hard, DC 20 due to the slick surface. Nothing more. If he didn't have tools, he doesn't add his proficiency bonus. If it's dark, he has disadvantage on the check.

[Lokiare]

Does that mean that you get upset when an advertisement says

"Fun for all Ages" and your Great Grandparent who can barely move outside the home doesn't seem to enjoy it? Or
"The whole family can enjoy" and you and your 2 month old sibling seem to not be enjoying it as much as others? Or
"Best Burgers in Town" and you can make better ones at home? Or
"Just like a good neighbor, State Farm is there" and unlike your neighbor when you ask them to go to a barbecue, they don't? Or
"Take my hundred dollar knife, yours for only $4.99" and find out that the knife was sold for 100 dollars before but really only worth 20? Or
"If we don't have it, you don't need it." and you find you need something random that they did not have? Or
"You're gonna like the way you look. I guarantee it." and since you have such a bad image problem you STILL don't like the way you look?

Do you rant and rave and demand that you get what you want? (Note, these advertisements are all real)

Nice exaggerations. Its more like:

"Fun for all ages" except for anyone outside the range of 5-8
"Best Burgers in Town" except polls show they aren't even close and usually come in last.
"Just like a good neighbor" Except they don't even pay out when your house burns down or you wreck your car no matter what, so more like your worst enemy.
"Take my hundred dollar knife" Well actually its pretty close to this one as its a blatant lie.

Basically you are trying to say its some form of advertising, rather than what it is. A blatant lie they have repeated over and over and over throughout the play test and in nearly every interview they've had and reinforced every chance they get.

All they gotta do is say "If you don't like the extremely swingy, deadly, dirt farmer turned hero play style, where 15 commoners can take on a dragon and have a reasonable chance of success, then this game just isn't for you."

The moment they say that I'm gone.

[Lokiare]

And... you screw up on the "Do the math" part. It's a moderate challenge, DC 15. Maybe a hard, DC 20 due to the slick surface. Nothing more. If he didn't have tools, he doesn't add his proficiency bonus. If it's dark, he has disadvantage on the check.

Yeah, I didn't memorize the chart because I'm not likely to play this edition without some module from the DMG that changed about 80% of the game.

You'll note that the quote doesn't tell the player to roll with advantage or disadvantage and it doesn't tell the DM to figure out the DC. It says take the roll and declare success or failure based on a whim or your gut or a whim of your gut or whatever. So amend the example and its still perfectly valid to show my point.

[hawklost]

Nice exaggerations. Its more like:

"Fun for all ages" except for anyone outside the range of 5-8
"Best Burgers in Town" except polls show they aren't even close and usually come in last.
"Just like a good neighbor" Except they don't even pay out when your house burns down or you wreck your car no matter what, so more like your worst enemy.
"Take my hundred dollar knife" Well actually its pretty close to this one as its a blatant lie.

Basically you are trying to say its some form of advertising, rather than what it is. A blatant lie they have repeated over and over and over throughout the play test and in nearly every interview they've had and reinforced every chance they get.

All they gotta do is say "If you don't like the extremely swingy, deadly, dirt farmer turned hero play style, where 15 commoners can take on a dragon and have a reasonable chance of success, then this game just isn't for you."

The moment they say that I'm gone.

Sorry, but any comments by a company promoting their product is a form of advertising. As such, you must use common sense and take it as that. Since I gave you Real Life Examples of advertisements that you personally then added in your own interpretation to means you at least can understand what an advertisement is. The problem is that you cannot seem to understand that what WoTC has posted and said is Also advertisement for their product. You seem to willingly be blind and/or ignorant of the fact that they were promoting a product just so you can be faux angry at them.

[Lokiare]

Sorry, but any comments by a company promoting their product is a form of advertising. As such, you must use common sense and take it as that. Since I gave you Real Life Examples of advertisements that you personally then added in your own interpretation to means you at least can understand what an advertisement is. The problem is that you cannot seem to understand that what WoTC has posted and said is Also advertisement for their product. You seem to willingly be blind and/or ignorant of the fact that they were promoting a product just so you can be faux angry at them.

The difference is they are claiming an objective fact. That every play style of previous editions will be supported. Those claims you used were designed to be vague enough to be unprovable. So when WotC repeatedly claims something over and over and its not just a tag line on one of their products, then they will reap what they sow. They are sowing the discord of players by claiming everyone will be able to play 5E with their preferred play style while specifically designing it so that they won't. There is a huge difference and I'll continue to harp on the subject until the DMG comes out. At that point I think everyone will have gotten the point themselves and move on to a better game.

[Kurald Galain]

"Fun for all ages" except for anyone outside the range of 5-8
"Best Burgers in Town" except polls show they aren't even close and usually come in last.
"Just like a good neighbor" Except they don't even pay out when your house burns down or you wreck your car no matter what, so more like your worst enemy.
"Take my hundred dollar knife" Well actually its pretty close to this one as its a blatant lie.

...I have no idea what this thread is about any more. Are we suddenly discussing 8-year-old PCs who are making craft(hamburger) checks or something? :smalleek:

[Human Paragon 3]

Yeah, we need to stop discussing our personal motivations for criticizing or supporting the edition and just stick to shop talk.

Please cut it out, or I am reporting the thread. And it's a good thread.

[Lokiare]

...I have no idea what this thread is about any more. Are we suddenly discussing 8-year-old PCs who are making craft(hamburger) checks or something? :smalleek:

Yes, its a DC 15 cooking check modified by the amount of supervision to be a DC 17 check (the parents are watching TV).

[Human Paragon 3]

Come on, you know we don't add +2 to difficulty DCs any more. We give disadvantage to the roll.

[hawklost]

...I have no idea what this thread is about any more. Are we suddenly discussing 8-year-old PCs who are making craft(hamburger) checks or something? :smalleek:

Na, the debate just went on because some people define 'bad math' as they don't like the way a system is. When trying to point out the logical fallacy of their claim they get upset.

Other people are arguing that the system works perfectly fine and has no flaws in it. When trying to point out the theoretical circumstances where they are possibly wrong, They get upset.

Others are annoyed at both those groups and try to point out they are both wrong and get into stupid debates that go off topic.

Since this topic is just a generalized question of "Does DnD use Bad Math and please show me how it does it if so" it kinda gets all three groups fighting.

Personally, I believe that DnD works quite well in a lot of the circumstances but fails in very specialized cases. It is then up to the DM to arbitrate those cases in a way to keep DnD from breaking. I also believe that ANY Roleplaying system has the same flaws in it and therefore does not need to claim DnD is worse than other systems.
-------
Flawed system by only using specific rules and DM not allowed to arbitrate
Wish + Gate + Dominate Monster (Low Wis Monster -2 or more Save) = Trivialized encounters for the day. With a DM not allowed to arbitrate this by doing something that is not explicitly spelled out in the rules, the players can do this indefinitely. Allowing a DM to actually Storytell, this works once or twice and then will fail somehow.

Note there are a lot of ways to break this system by demanding a DM play stupidly. Most of the 'Bad Math' that players get upset at are their personal interpretations of the rules and how they absolutely have to be followed their way only. (DMs can easily be included in this)
--------

So in the end, yes, DnD has Bad Math in it. Now, find me a system that has 0 flaws in its math and I will give you a forum cookie.

[da_chicken]

So in the end, yes, DnD has Bad Math in it. Now, find me a system that has 0 flaws in its math and I will give you a forum cookie.

Amber Diceless? Unless you're playing in a universe where 37 is sometimes smaller than 25, I guess.

[hawklost]

Amber Diceless? Unless you're playing in a universe where 37 is sometimes smaller than 25, I guess.

Well, since there really isn't dice in it. I think I might have to give it too you.

Here is your forum cookie. I hope you enjoy!:smallbiggrin:

http://indiesquish.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/cookie.png

[Lokiare]

Na, the debate just went on because some people define 'bad math' as they don't like the way a system is. When trying to point out the logical fallacy of their claim they get upset.

Other people are arguing that the system works perfectly fine and has no flaws in it. When trying to point out the theoretical circumstances where they are possibly wrong, They get upset.

Others are annoyed at both those groups and try to point out they are both wrong and get into stupid debates that go off topic.

Since this topic is just a generalized question of "Does DnD use Bad Math and please show me how it does it if so" it kinda gets all three groups fighting.

Personally, I believe that DnD works quite well in a lot of the circumstances but fails in very specialized cases. It is then up to the DM to arbitrate those cases in a way to keep DnD from breaking. I also believe that ANY Roleplaying system has the same flaws in it and therefore does not need to claim DnD is worse than other systems.
-------
Flawed system by only using specific rules and DM not allowed to arbitrate
Wish + Gate + Dominate Monster (Low Wis Monster -2 or more Save) = Trivialized encounters for the day. With a DM not allowed to arbitrate this by doing something that is not explicitly spelled out in the rules, the players can do this indefinitely. Allowing a DM to actually Storytell, this works once or twice and then will fail somehow.

Note there are a lot of ways to break this system by demanding a DM play stupidly. Most of the 'Bad Math' that players get upset at are their personal interpretations of the rules and how they absolutely have to be followed their way only. (DMs can easily be included in this)
--------

So in the end, yes, DnD has Bad Math in it. Now, find me a system that has 0 flaws in its math and I will give you a forum cookie.

I disagree. The distinction isn't 'a DM can fix it'. The distinction is 'should a DM have to fix quite a large number of these flaws'. One or two of these things is fine. They are going to crop up. Its not fine when the entire system is based on these kind of 'the DM has to fix it' problems. To me the game stops being fun when I constantly have to stop the game to fix some problem as the DM. I'd rather spend my time telling the story and describing the world and how it reacts to the players choices and actions.

I'm sure there are play styles where the fun comes from the DM dictating how the rules should work or working around broken or flawed rules, but that just isn't what my play style is about.

[Knaight]

Personally, I believe that DnD works quite well in a lot of the circumstances but fails in very specialized cases. It is then up to the DM to arbitrate those cases in a way to keep DnD from breaking. I also believe that ANY Roleplaying system has the same flaws in it and therefore does not need to claim DnD is worse than other systems.

This doesn't follow. While any roleplaying system might have the same flaws, there's no guarantee that they exist to the same extent. I'd consider the level of bounding of skills and such a problem that isn't present in a whole bunch of systems.

[hawklost]

This doesn't follow. While any roleplaying system might have the same flaws, there's no guarantee that they exist to the same extent. I'd consider the level of bounding of skills and such a problem that isn't present in a whole bunch of systems.

The Bounding of skills is in quite a few systems although not in the same way. Vampire/Werewolf/Mage all use bounding by only having a max skill points you can use. shadowrun is the same way.

DnD traditionally did not have any way to Bound the skills from max. That worked fine (for the most part) when you followed the rules in the Core books but broke down heavily when using Splat books to maximize a stat/skill.

By Adding Bounding into the Core book and saying you can't go higher than this, you stop the Splat books from being able to overcharge a skill without going against what the Core dictates (which Splats sometimes do anyways). It at least allows a DM to say "No, its not in the core and we are not using that specific splat"

Is it a perfect system? Absolutely not. I actually prefer the systems like Werewolf where you cannot possibly get a higher skill because there is no such thing. But at lest it keeps the crazy growth in check. (and less people trying to find masterwork this and this small skill here and this class gives this and.. and ... and.... and finally coming up with a +15-20 at level 1)

[1337 b4k4]

Your comparison fails to work the moment that one of the PCs is competent at something and another is not.

If one PC is good at swimming and the other is not, they nonetheless have almost the same success rates for any task related to swimming (except if the competent character is both strength-primary and very high level).

The problem is, when we're talking two PCs, were aren't talking NBA player vs 7 year old kid. The ability check system is clearly not designed to model that. It's designed to model "lowest ranked NBA player vs top ranked NBA player, which is a much different (and smaller difference in ability) comparison. By deciding to use BA to model the ability check system, WotC is very explicitly declining to model "I don't know how to swim" vs "I'm a champion olympic swimmer". Their system assumes that at tasks your adventurers will encounter while adventuring, you all have a very similar level of competence. It then further assumes that some will have specialized (and be naturally apt) in certain areas and gives you a comparative (but not substantial) advantage over your counterparts.



How about we stick you in a geneticists lab and tell you to create a GMO corn that resists bugs*. Unless you are a well trained geneticist with lots of experience and talent you are not going to succeed. If we hand an untrained clumsy climber some climbing tools and send them up mount everest, more than likely they will die and even if they don't they certainly won't succeed. So this whole idea of 'everyone should have a chance at everything' is pure nonsense.

The ability check system is not intended to model this.





All they gotta do is say "If you don't like the extremely swingy, deadly, dirt farmer turned hero play style, where 15 commoners can take on a dragon and have a reasonable chance of success, then this game just isn't for you."

The moment they say that I'm gone.

They did say that. The moment they stuck D&D on the cover and not GURPS.



Now lets apply that to D&D:

Player rolls a modified total of 20 and starts cheering. The DM says "well that probably is a success".

Then the DM does the math:
Its a moderate challenge DC 15, but the character is in the dark and can't see so the DC goes to 17. Then the DM realizes the surface is slick (the character is climbing) so he raises it to 19. Then the DM realizes the character doesn't have the proper tools and the DC goes to 24. Oops the character failed.


I'm sorry, I'm failing to see the issue here. If the DCs were pre-calculated, it's the same result, having fixed DCs doesn't alter the fact that a roll of 20 doesn't beat a DC 24.

[Envyus]

All they gotta do is say "If you don't like the extremely swingy, deadly, dirt farmer turned hero play style, where 15 commoners can take on a dragon and have a reasonable chance of success, then this game just isn't for you."

The moment they say that I'm gone.

I find that all your complaints are dependent on the PC's being level 1 or level 20. Also 15 Commoners would be slaughtered by a Dragon. You would need like at least 50 or so to beat the Green Dragon from the starter set and I would still bet on the Dragon.

[Knaight]

The Bounding of skills is in quite a few systems although not in the same way. Vampire/Werewolf/Mage all use bounding by only having a max skill points you can use. shadowrun is the same way.

Sure, and the rest of these don't use the linear distribution of D&D. Shadowrun and WoD both use fairly similar die pool systems with similar distributions.

[Tehnar]

The problem is, when we're talking two PCs, were aren't talking NBA player vs 7 year old kid. The ability check system is clearly not designed to model that. It's designed to model "lowest ranked NBA player vs top ranked NBA player, which is a much different (and smaller difference in ability) comparison. By deciding to use BA to model the ability check system, WotC is very explicitly declining to model "I don't know how to swim" vs "I'm a champion olympic swimmer". Their system assumes that at tasks your adventurers will encounter while adventuring, you all have a very similar level of competence. It then further assumes that some will have specialized (and be naturally apt) in certain areas and gives you a comparative (but not substantial) advantage over your counterparts.


The problem with this approach is that it ignores the fact that PC's will interact with non adventurers, NPC's and monsters. The PCs will face STR 8 goblins as well as STR 20+ monsters. So even if you argue that adventurers are a competent lot, with a similar level of competence, the NPC's they are facing are not. They can not have similar level of competence if you want diversified monsters. A ogre trying to push against a door held by a PC has to have a noticeably different chance then a goblin pushing at the door against the same PC. Right now, the success rate of the goblin and ogre are way too close and much too swingy. This is the bad math we are talking about.

If two vastly different monsters have (for example, a small and weak goblin, and a large and strong ogre) a similar chance of breaking through a held door by the same PC then that breaks immersion and doesn't facilitate roleplay. This kind of thing will happen all the time and leave players (and the DM) frustrated, since most people don't consider DnD a slapstick game.

[Tholomyes]

The problem with this approach is that it ignores the fact that PC's will interact with non adventurers, NPC's and monsters. The PCs will face STR 8 goblins as well as STR 20+ monsters. So even if you argue that adventurers are a competent lot, with a similar level of competence, the NPC's they are facing are not. They can not have similar level of competence if you want diversified monsters. A ogre trying to push against a door held by a PC has to have a noticeably different chance then a goblin pushing at the door against the same PC. Right now, the success rate of the goblin and ogre are way too close and much too swingy. This is the bad math we are talking about.

If two vastly different monsters have (for example, a small and weak goblin, and a large and strong ogre) a similar chance of breaking through a held door by the same PC then that breaks immersion and doesn't facilitate roleplay. This kind of thing will happen all the time and leave players (and the DM) frustrated, since most people don't consider DnD a slapstick game.I disagree on this. I think it's easy to look at the bonuses, they may look too close, but at least in my experience, DMs will run monsters with the flavor they're supposed to have. It doesn't matter that a goblin may have a roughly decent chance to knock down the door, it's unlikely the DM will have the goblin attempt to do that, rather than try something else, like try and burn it down with a vial of looted alchemist's fire, or what have you.

[Tehnar]

I disagree on this. I think it's easy to look at the bonuses, they may look too close, but at least in my experience, DMs will run monsters with the flavor they're supposed to have. It doesn't matter that a goblin may have a roughly decent chance to knock down the door, it's unlikely the DM will have the goblin attempt to do that, rather than try something else, like try and burn it down with a vial of looted alchemist's fire, or what have you.

So the solution is DM fiat? If the fluff says one thing, but the mechanics give a different result, the solution is to ignore the mechanics? Why do need mechanics at all then?

You also take tools out of the DM's toolbox. If you fiat that the goblin can't push down a door held by a PC, what if the door was held by a NPC halfling, or a child? Does the goblin also burn the door down then, or does he try to push it?

What if the fluff is not so obvious, or the players see the situation differently then the DM?

Wouldn't it be better if we had mechanics that matched the fluff, instead of trying to fiat fluff into the mechanics.

[Jenckes]

The problem with this approach is that it ignores the fact that PC's will interact with non adventurers, NPC's and monsters. The PCs will face STR 8 goblins as well as STR 20+ monsters. So even if you argue that adventurers are a competent lot, with a similar level of competence, the NPC's they are facing are not. They can not have similar level of competence if you want diversified monsters. A ogre trying to push against a door held by a PC has to have a noticeably different chance then a goblin pushing at the door against the same PC. Right now, the success rate of the goblin and ogre are way too close and much too swingy. This is the bad math we are talking about.

If two vastly different monsters have (for example, a small and weak goblin, and a large and strong ogre) a similar chance of breaking through a held door by the same PC then that breaks immersion and doesn't facilitate roleplay. This kind of thing will happen all the time and leave players (and the DM) frustrated, since most people don't consider DnD a slapstick game.

What? Why would they have a similar chance of breaking the door? Going by some playtest documents the strength already gives a difference of 5 on modifiers, which is a fairly big difference. That's without considering proficiency which as a DM I would likely give an ogre a proficiency bonus in something relating to smashing doors? Then you're looking at a difference of 8 (-1 to +7) which seems like a fairly big difference to me. Not to mention advantage and disadvantage which I could definitely see applying here.

I think the proficiency system as opposed to the skill/BAB system allows for more immersion, if not immersion at least it solves some problems I've had as DM. The way AC and skills have worked in 3.X I would have a really hard time including a low CR monster late game. They just had a problem that they'd never hit, or alternatively never be able to lie or hide from the PCs. I'm fairly happy with the way proficiency bonus/stat caps work. It makes it possible for high and low CR creatures/players to interact with each other. Which I think is cool, I don't have to make the shop owner level 15 to be good at his job.

[Envyus]

So the solution is DM fiat? If the fluff says one thing, but the mechanics give a different result, the solution is to ignore the mechanics? Why do need mechanics at all then?

You also take tools out of the DM's toolbox. If you fiat that the goblin can't push down a door held by a PC, what if the door was held by a NPC halfling, or a child? Does the goblin also burn the door down then, or does he try to push it?

What if the fluff is not so obvious, or the players see the situation differently then the DM?

Wouldn't it be better if we had mechanics that matched the fluff, instead of trying to fiat fluff into the mechanics.

They do match the fluff as well however. An Ogre is much stronger then a goblin and has a good chance of knocking down the door.

[Tehnar]

What? Why would they have a similar chance of breaking the door? Going by some playtest documents the strength already gives a difference of 5 on modifiers, which is a fairly big difference. That's without considering proficiency which as a DM I would likely give an ogre a proficiency bonus in something relating to smashing doors? Then you're looking at a difference of 8 (-1 to +7) which seems like a fairly big difference to me. Not to mention advantage and disadvantage which I could definitely see applying here.



They do match the fluff as well however. An Ogre is much stronger then a goblin and has a good chance of knocking down the door.

A difference of 5 is not substantially better, at least not in my opinion. That means if a ogre can force through a door 75% of the time, a goblin will force through 50% of the time. My expectations of the fluff does not match the reality of the situation as described by the mechanics.

As for handing out various bonuses to the ogres/goblins roll: Do you give the ogre advantage if the door is held by a STR 20 fighter (stronger then a ogre)? A dwarf? What about a character with 18 STR? Do you give the goblin disadvantage if the door is held by a STR 8 halfling? If you give the Ogre proficiency, why does the PC holding the door not get proficiency? Or will the PC gain proficiency when the goblin is trying to knock down the door, but not when the ogre is?

[Jenckes]

The ogre's proficiency does not relate to the PC. If it relates to anything it would relate to the goblin, if I were calling it an opposed athletics check a PC proficient in athletics would get the bonus. Athletics is the only strength skill, as I see it it is not outrageous to give a creature who's primary stat is strength proficiency in the only strength skill.

As for advantage, if an ogre weighs 5x more than the average medium humanoid and is involved in a test of strength where one's own mass factors into the result, it does not seem out of place to apply an advantage. If the PC was an enlarged barbarian I don't believe anyone would get advantage. In this case size seems to be a factor. You point this out yourself in your quest for realisism. If you believe the goblin should be unlikely to push a door open when a strong, medium sized, PC stands at the other side of the door, maybe you should give the goblin disadvantage on his or her roll.

Advantage and Disadvantage seem to rely mostly on how the DM sees the scenario. The DM has to make decisions, hands out bonuses and penalties. That's nothing new to DnD. Disadvantages and Advantages are, IMHO just a math lite way of applying what would traditionally just be math modifiers of one type or another.

[archaeo]

So the solution is DM fiat? If the fluff says one thing, but the mechanics give a different result, the solution is to ignore the mechanics? Why do need mechanics at all then?

You also take tools out of the DM's toolbox. If you fiat that the goblin can't push down a door held by a PC, what if the door was held by a NPC halfling, or a child? Does the goblin also burn the door down then, or does he try to push it?

What if the fluff is not so obvious, or the players see the situation differently then the DM?

Wouldn't it be better if we had mechanics that matched the fluff, instead of trying to fiat fluff into the mechanics.

The problem is that 5e, like literally every other system, has to chart out some position within the wide middle of this issue, as either extreme will be far more problematic. Different systems have gone to one extreme or the other; I think the canonical examples include GRUPS as "all mechanics, no fluff," while FATE gets about as close to "all fluff, no mechanics" as it's possible to get while still being a game.

As an aside: maybe Choose Your Own Adventure books are the closest to "all fluff, no mechanics." Suffice it to say that a "game" requires some kind of mechanics, even if that mechanic is as simple as "offer players binary choices at certain points in the narrative."

I haven't seen any evidence using actual ogres and actual goblins; maybe it would be more useful to discuss the system when we actually know what monsters are capable of, instead of debating game design ideology?

[Fwiffo86]

That every play style of previous editions will be supported. Those claims you used were designed to be vague enough to be unprovable.

Not to be nit picky, but is that anywhere on their products for 5e? Now that I'm home and once again have access to my stuff.... I'm looking directly at my Starter set, and I'm not seeing a single claim about any playstyle, much less all of them? I didn't see that claim anywhere on the pdf either. Must be on the web site somewhere.

*shrugs*

Not important enough to put on the product, not important enough for me to think about.

[Envyus]

I haven't seen any evidence using actual ogres and actual goblins; maybe it would be more useful to discuss the system when we actually know what monsters are capable of, instead of debating game design ideology?

Allow me.

I just rolled 20 dice.

10 for the Ogre and 10 for a Goblin. Lets say they were trying to force open a boarded door. DC 15. These rolls all have the modifier built in already.

Ogre Rolls
9
16
15
17
5
17
19
9
5
12
Goblin Rolls
18
6
12
10
13
14
12
2
10
14

The Ogre succeeded five times while the Goblin only did once the Goblin also got better rolls for the most part.

[Theodoxus]

If the creatures are trying to get through a held door, it wouldn't be a straight DC, it would be an opposed check. I don't know what the DC is to open a stuck door - I'd hand wave it, generally - DC 5 at the worst; we're talking stuck like humidity swelling wood, not stuck like piton pounded into the ground...

At any rate, if a Str 18 Human is holding a door closed (presumably on the side it opens into, so he's not pulling it shut, but pushing - a far easier task) then he'd roll a d20, add +4 for strength and that's the DC. I could see granting proficiency Athletics bonus, if he's using some kind of back to the door power lifting leg move, for instance.

At this point, the ogre would probably be better off breaking through the door with an axe or beastly club - given its a standard wooden door. The break DC would probably be easier - of course, he wouldn't know that - attempt to bullrush through the door, make an opposed check - succeed and step on the humie, or fail and then bash through the door.

The goblin would also probably attempt to open the door, not realizing the human stopped to brace it. At -1 vs +6 (at least), the goblin will have a difficult time of it. Of course, once he realizes it's barred somehow, he'll use other tricks up his sleeve to remedy it - but I don't think the math in this case is particularly bad. That's the advantage (no pun intended) of opposed rolls.

I would probably go so far as to say, if the door has a base DC to open it - it's stuck or whatever, them the group who is on the beneficial side would gain advantage, and the one on the detrimental side would gain disadvantage. The smart humie who pitons the door suddenly has a much easier time holding it against the ogre. The one who's pulling the door closed would have disadvantage to the one trying to bullrush it open.

[obryn]

Not to be nit picky, but is that anywhere on their products for 5e? Now that I'm home and once again have access to my stuff.... I'm looking directly at my Starter set, and I'm not seeing a single claim about any playstyle, much less all of them? I didn't see that claim anywhere on the pdf either. Must be on the web site somewhere.
It was from an early article back during the initial hype period, and it's a goal they clearly discarded. It's a goal they HAD to discard, because it's both impossible and would make a terrible game like some early playtests. Lokiare is only still harping on it because without it, his argument falls apart. It's like the folks who still gripe about those videos WotC's ad firms made in 2007 or whatever.

5e is its own game, and it makes no sense anymore to criticize or praise it for anything except what it is.

[Tholomyes]

So the solution is DM fiat? If the fluff says one thing, but the mechanics give a different result, the solution is to ignore the mechanics? Why do need mechanics at all then?I fail to see why people see DM fiat as a bad thing. It can be used poorly, I'm not denying, but I don't think that's a problem with fiat as much as with DMs who are bad. Also, it's not fiat in absence of mechanics. Goblins are Str 8, while the Ogre is Str 19; one of them would knock down the door, while the other would find it easier to go about things another way.


You also take tools out of the DM's toolbox. If you fiat that the goblin can't push down a door held by a PC, what if the door was held by a NPC halfling, or a child? Does the goblin also burn the door down then, or does he try to push it?If it's NPC vs NPC, then I fail to see what the issue is. The goblin does whatever is in flavor for it, and the outcome is whatever is necessary for the story. The only times when NPC vs NPC should be rolled out, IMO, is a) if they're somehow a part of combat, or b) if there is something where uncertainty matters (such as if the party is in combat, while, simultaneously the goblins are trying to get through a door that the party doesn't want them to get through; uncertainty matters because it affects PC tactics)


What if the fluff is not so obvious, or the players see the situation differently then the DM?The way I've always done it is Players are in charge of the fluff that relates to their characters, and they have the domain for things in that (such as, if they create a new deity that their character worships, I won't break from the fluff they set up, too much), but everything else is largely the DM's domain. As such, the fluff will probably be what the DM says, even if the players see it differently. I haven't really seen any times where this is problematic, though, so I fail to see where you're going with this.


Wouldn't it be better if we had mechanics that matched the fluff, instead of trying to fiat fluff into the mechanics.
Mechanics matching fluff would be ideal, in a vacuum, but I'm not willing to sacrifice sound rules for PCs, to make it so NPCs and monsters, who can be fiated, directly match fluff. I'd rather keep it where it is now (roughly; truth be told, I'd rather eliminate the level-dependent increasing disparity in skills, and instead have it be a flat bonus, or preferably a skill-point system where you can spread skill points as you see fit, but without the ever increasing number, a la 3e), where Success is neither practically guaranteed nor nearly impossible for any PC, unless the roll is intended to be nearly impossible (rolls that are intended to be practically guaranteed successes, IMO shouldn't be rolled). In order to make NPCs and monsters different from this, you'd need to either change PC rules, or complicate things for a different Proficiency system for NPCs and monsters, both of which I'd argue aren't worth it.

[Knaight]

I fail to see why people see DM fiat as a bad thing. It can be used poorly, I'm not denying, but I don't think that's a problem with fiat as much as with DMs who are bad. Also, it's not fiat in absence of mechanics. Goblins are Str 8, while the Ogre is Str 19; one of them would knock down the door, while the other would find it easier to go about things another way.

If one of them would knock down the door, then the mechanics should reflect that. I have no problem with fiat being necessary in places, it being routinely necessary in ability checks because the modifiers aren't doing the job is a problem.

[Tholomyes]

If one of them would knock down the door, then the mechanics should reflect that. I have no problem with fiat being necessary in places, it being routinely necessary in ability checks because the modifiers aren't doing the job is a problem.Except, my argument is that they wouldn't try to knock it down (or, if they would, it'd be more of a flavorful thing, where they ineffectively bash against it a few times, before firebombing the door; the bashing would only be for flavor, anyway, where the real attempt would be the fire)

[Knaight]

Except, my argument is that they wouldn't try to knock it down (or, if they would, it'd be more of a flavorful thing, where they ineffectively bash against it a few times, before firebombing the door; the bashing would only be for flavor, anyway, where the real attempt would be the fire)

Which works out well, until they manage to bash it down anyways in those flavor attempts, which is what the mechanics suggest. The +5 difference isn't enough. Now, if the attributes were more direct, and the 19 to 8 worked out to a +11 difference? That would cover it nicely. If size was brought into it, it would be covered nicely. So on and so forth. The actual mechanics don't do that.

[Envyus]

Which works out well, until they manage to bash it down anyways in those flavor attempts, which is what the mechanics suggest. The +5 difference isn't enough. Now, if the attributes were more direct, and the 19 to 8 worked out to a +11 difference? That would cover it nicely. If size was brought into it, it would be covered nicely. So on and so forth. The actual mechanics don't do that.

I just did a roll off. The Ogre forced open the door 5 times out of 10 with a DC 15 check. The Goblin got through it once.

In terms of pure statistics. The Ogre has a 45% chance to get through the door compared to the Goblins 20% chance.

[Lokiare]

Not to be nit picky, but is that anywhere on their products for 5e? Now that I'm home and once again have access to my stuff.... I'm looking directly at my Starter set, and I'm not seeing a single claim about any playstyle, much less all of them? I didn't see that claim anywhere on the pdf either. Must be on the web site somewhere.

*shrugs*

Not important enough to put on the product, not important enough for me to think about.
It was talked about by mearls and co throughout the play test and afterward.

It was from an early article back during the initial hype period, and it's a goal they clearly discarded. It's a goal they HAD to discard, because it's both impossible and would make a terrible game like some early playtests. Lokiare is only still harping on it because without it, his argument falls apart. It's like the folks who still gripe about those videos WotC's ad firms made in 2007 or whatever.

5e is its own game, and it makes no sense anymore to criticize or praise it for anything except what it is.

Sorry, no. They keep talking about it. Go back and read a few L&L articles and you'll see its a current design goal.

[Tehnar]

To not get into quote wars, this reply is for Tholomyes, Envyus and Jenckes primarily, and their respective posts.

I am talking about a opposed check situation, one where a PC holds the door against a ogre, and one where he holds the door against a goblin. The example was chosen because it is easy to imagne, and I believe our expectations about the situation are mostly the same. That a ogre should have a substantially easier time pushing the door then a goblin. The problem I have is that the mechanics don't reflect that (70% for the ogre vs 45% for the goblin vs a STR 10 PC, or 50%/25% vs a STR 18 PC).

Now, I agree with you that a ogre should get a advantage on that roll. However, it might cause discussion between PC's and the DM if it comes up; especially if they had different expectations. Take for example, a situation where a ogre tries to bull rush the PC off the cliff. IF the ogre didn't have advantage then, why does he have one now? If he did have advantage, why is that not a rule? I would be fine if there was a rule that said, larger creatures have advantage on STR checks against smaller ones. The point is that there is no rule regarding that, and we are back to ability checks. The mechanics are lacking, that is why I say the math is bad.

What happens when a situation comes up when things are not so calibrated towards our expectations? What happens if we have Elan and Redcloak both trying to exercise control over a sphere of annihilation, the mental equivalent of door pushing (with lets say the same difference in modifiers)? Should Elan have disadvantage? Or Red advantage? This is a situation where not all players will have the same expectation.

IMO the worst part of 3e was the ability check resolution systems. That is why all other 3e resolution systems had additional modifiers tacked on top of them in a attempt to fix the math (to hit rolls, saves, skills). Now the entire basis of 5e is the ability check resolution system, without those additional modifiers for the most part. Having modifiers in the range of -1 to +11 is too small, given the spread of the d20. That is why 5e mechanics don't meet the fluff, and that is why 5e's math is bad.

Why they didn't go a straight d20+ability score, like they had in 2e is baffling to me. Or even 3d6; that would fix a lot of the math problems. But they went with the worst possible resolution system.

[Tholomyes]

Which works out well, until they manage to bash it down anyways in those flavor attempts, which is what the mechanics suggest. The +5 difference isn't enough. Now, if the attributes were more direct, and the 19 to 8 worked out to a +11 difference? That would cover it nicely. If size was brought into it, it would be covered nicely. So on and so forth. The actual mechanics don't do that.I think you're misunderstanding me. There's no rolling. There never was. They don't break it down on the flavor attempts, because they're nothing more than flavor. Here's how I see it going in play:

Fighter: I go to hold back the door, to stop the goblins from entering.
DM: Ok, you feel a few slams into the door, but you manage to hold back the goblins' feeble attempts. After a moment the slams stop, and you hear the distinct sound a a glass vial smash against something, and the door behind you slowly feels like it's getting warmer, and black smoke creeps through the thin gap at the top of the doorway *Rolls some d4s, or, more likely a d20, to see how long the door lasts*

vs:

Fighter: I go to hold back the door, to stop the ogre from entering.
DM: Ok, Roll a strength saving throw.
*Depending on whether it beats DC 14 (8+Prof+Str; I might otherwise not give proficiency bonus, since ogres don't get Proficiency in anything that could force open a door, but it's an ogre, so I'll give it anyway. Alternatively just call it a Passive Strength check, for the same DC)*
DM (if success): You feel a big slam on the door, and your feet begin to lose traction on the floor. Then you feel a second one, but you manage to hold the door fast.You feel a third slam, and the door quickly budges ajar for a moment before you manage to force it back. You're able to hold the ogre back, but you don't know for how long.
DM (if failure): You feel a big slam, and your strength buckles under the massive force of the ogre, sending you across the room, as the ogre barrels in. You manage to catch yourself before you fall over from the force, but you still have the ogre to deal with.

So, as you see, two different methods of resolving the same situation, for different creatures, which yield different results. Is it fiating? Sure, perhaps. Is it bad for the game to assume that the DM has the power to do so? I'd argue no, not at all.

(As an aside, while some might treat the door bashing as opposed strength checks, I'd argue that's the wrong way to do it, especially if you want to minimize the RNG, with respect to character skill. The doubling of Variance with the addition of a second d20 means skill bonuses matter a lot less.)


IMO the worst part of 3e was the ability check resolution systems. That is why all other 3e resolution systems had additional modifiers tacked on top of them in a attempt to fix the math (to hit rolls, saves, skills). Now the entire basis of 5e is the ability check resolution system, without those additional modifiers for the most part. Having modifiers in the range of -1 to +11 is too small, given the spread of the d20. That is why 5e mechanics don't meet the fluff, and that is why 5e's math is bad.See, here's where I disagree entirely. By expanding the spread, you get to a point where the roll doesn't matter. In 3.x (and other systems) the range gets to the point where you might as well not roll, because a task is either impossible or impossibly easy, depending on whether you've invested in a skill or not. That is, unless you decide that DCs don't matter, and you just wing it on the fly, and make up things as you go along, at which point, again, rolling is meaningless. I like it where investing in a skill provides a meaningful benefit, but it doesn't invalidate those who don't have proficiency, which I think 5e largely does (granted, I'd prefer they didn't start so low and end so high, and it'd be more like a flat +4 bonus or so, or a skill point system where you could invest between +2 and +6 depending on how much you wanted to put in a certain skill [btw, If that's not an alternative in the DMG, I'll be a sad Tholo, though admittedly not too sad, since I can homebrew something up]).

It's admittedly a playstyle choice, but I like the smaller range, since it opens options for greater improvisation and outside the box ideas, rather than everyone just using their same 3-6 (or so) skills, more or less exclusively. And I like the d20's randomness to play a bit of a factor. If I didn't want that, I'd play a 3d6 game or even a diceless game.

Though, I wouldn't be surprised if the DMG didn't have options for making proficiency in skills matter more. Admittedly, this is getting somewhat into Schrödinger's DMG territory, but if they don't have rules options like this, I have no idea how they can manage to fill the DMG, without just repeating things ad nauseum.

[da_chicken]

Well, since there really isn't dice in it. I think I might have to give it too you.

Here is your forum cookie. I hope you enjoy!:smallbiggrin:

Well, there's no dice, but there is math. Arguably it's not the best math, either, since you decide at the start of the game the order for who wins every contest for each attribute. It's just perfectly consistent and so generally pretty balanced. It does break down the more players there are, though. The difficulty is getting the game to use the attribute you win with.


So the solution is DM fiat? If the fluff says one thing, but the mechanics give a different result, the solution is to ignore the mechanics? Why do need mechanics at all then?

Just because it's fluff doesn't make it less than a rule. It's just not a mechanical rule. Creatures with the evil alignment doing evil acts is a rule, as is alignment in general. A Paladin's code of conduct is still a game rule. Chromatic dragons are arrogant as a rule. Ogres are short tempered and brutish as a rule. Goblins are cowardly and crafty as a rule.

[Tehnar]

See, here's where I disagree entirely. By expanding the spread, you get to a point where the roll doesn't matter. In 3.x (and other systems) the range gets to the point where you might as well not roll, because a task is either impossible or impossibly easy, depending on whether you've invested in a skill or not. That is, unless you decide that DCs don't matter, and you just wing it on the fly, and make up things as you go along, at which point, again, rolling is meaningless. I like it where investing in a skill provides a meaningful benefit, but it doesn't invalidate those who don't have proficiency, which I think 5e largely does (granted, I'd prefer they didn't start so low and end so high, and it'd be more like a flat +4 bonus or so, or a skill point system where you could invest between +2 and +6 depending on how much you wanted to put in a certain skill [btw, If that's not an alternative in the DMG, I'll be a sad Tholo, though admittedly not too sad, since I can homebrew something up]).

It's admittedly a playstyle choice, but I like the smaller range, since it opens options for greater improvisation and outside the box ideas, rather than everyone just using their same 3-6 (or so) skills, more or less exclusively. And I like the d20's randomness to play a bit of a factor. If I didn't want that, I'd play a 3d6 game or even a diceless game.

Though, I wouldn't be surprised if the DMG didn't have options for making proficiency in skills matter more. Admittedly, this is getting somewhat into Schrödinger's DMG territory, but if they don't have rules options like this, I have no idea how they can manage to fill the DMG, without just repeating things ad nauseum.

You are wrong. Expanding the spread means that the roll matters, but only against DC's or foes that match your ability. That means that the d20 matters very little if a strong fighter pushes against a goblin, but it matters in a contest vs the ogre.

I expect a system to model a strong fighter winning a door pushing contest against a goblin almost automatically, being even with a ogre, and auto losing against a great wyrm. I don't understand why its bad if a character that invested resources into a check, automatically overcomes easy and moderate challenges. That just means that if a character invested into a check, he is really good at it that the easy stuff is no longer challenging. He passes such things routinely. So what if other party members can't even attempt at things that the invested character passes routinely? It just means that that is a character defining trait, something players remember about him.

A character being able to jump to the top of a house from a standing jump o run through walls doesn't make other characters look bad if they can't perform those same things, as long as they have their own badass things they can do.

[hawklost]

You are wrong. Expanding the spread means that the roll matters, but only against DC's or foes that match your ability. That means that the d20 matters very little if a strong fighter pushes against a goblin, but it matters in a contest vs the ogre.

I expect a system to model a strong fighter winning a door pushing contest against a goblin almost automatically, being even with a ogre, and auto losing against a great wyrm. I don't understand why its bad if a character that invested resources into a check, automatically overcomes easy and moderate challenges. That just means that if a character invested into a check, he is really good at it that the easy stuff is no longer challenging. He passes such things routinely. So what if other party members can't even attempt at things that the invested character passes routinely? It just means that that is a character defining trait, something players remember about him.

A character being able to jump to the top of a house from a standing jump o run through walls doesn't make other characters look bad if they can't perform those same things, as long as they have their own badass things they can do.

If you wish for a system where a person who is significantly better than a different person (or Goblin, Ogre, Wyrm) then you could always put in a House Rule for it. Say (If there is a +x (5 be good?) different in bonus dice between the opposing checks, the one with the higher check Always wins. You have now fixed your issue with a strong fighter not being able to hold against a weak oponent, having a challenge against a strong opponent and failing miserably against a powerful opponent.

On the other hand, a lot of times, I find it fun and amusing to let the dice dictate some of that as well (with DM providing bonuses and negatives as he feels appropriate (yes, I like DMs to fiat a lot of things to make an awesome story).

Fighter holding the door against a creature?
Oops goblin rolled high and Fighter rolled low - "As you attempt to hold the door closed, you realize the ground is slick from some kind of slimy substance, you feel a goblin slam its body against the door with great force and your footing slips. The door partially opens as you loose your footing and fall to the ground"

Fighter High, Wyrm low - "As you press your while body against the door, using the uneven tiles on the ground for extra leverage, you feel a slam against the door. You are pretty sure the Wyrm knows where you are but for some reason it seems to only be using a half hearted attempt at busting down the door." Round x later, Wyrm rolls high "This time as you hold the door, you can almost sense a build up of pressure a moment before you feel the wooden door crack under a tremendous blow. It seems that the Wyrm is getting serous now".

Those scenarios seem much more interesting to me than "As you hold the door against the goblins, you can tell that they do not have the strength break through" Or "You attempt to hold the door against the Wyrm but he bulls over you with his power".

Both ways work I know and both can have great narrative. I just personally enjoy the chance of even the best person failing by bad luck sometimes. (No, I don't believe in killing someone for a bad roll like that)

[obryn]

You are wrong. Expanding the spread means that the roll matters, but only against DC's or foes that match your ability. That means that the d20 matters very little if a strong fighter pushes against a goblin, but it matters in a contest vs the ogre.

I expect a system to model a strong fighter winning a door pushing contest against a goblin almost automatically, being even with a ogre, and auto losing against a great wyrm. I don't understand why its bad if a character that invested resources into a check, automatically overcomes easy and moderate challenges. That just means that if a character invested into a check, he is really good at it that the easy stuff is no longer challenging. He passes such things routinely. So what if other party members can't even attempt at things that the invested character passes routinely? It just means that that is a character defining trait, something players remember about him.
I'm completely on board with competent adventurers being competent.

I think things start to fall apart, though, when you have (for example) the Fighter getting grappled by a huge snake that outclasses him, and it's impossible for him to escape. Or for a caster to pump their spell save difficulty so high that it's impossible to resist her spells. That sort of thing - where it's much more entertaining if the PCs have a fighting chance.

[Lokiare]

If you wish for a system where a person who is significantly better than a different person (or Goblin, Ogre, Wyrm) then you could always put in a House Rule for it. Say (If there is a +x (5 be good?) different in bonus dice between the opposing checks, the one with the higher check Always wins. You have now fixed your issue with a strong fighter not being able to hold against a weak oponent, having a challenge against a strong opponent and failing miserably against a powerful opponent.

The number of things I have to house rule to make this edition playable is already approaching 80% of the game, why would I want to add more on top of that? The rules should be so simple and intuitive that the only time you have to house rule is when you want to change the feel of the game, not when you have to correct problems with the games math.

Why not just spread the DCs out like I suggested. That doesn't affect bounded accuracy one bit because unlike a lot of posters on here, I understand what bounded accuracy is actually supposed to be: That DCs and enemies don't necessarily increase with level without having some underlying reason for it. So a hard DC is the same for a level 1 character as it is for a level 20 character (of course I haven't seen an edition where this wasn't true, but whatever). So when that level 1 character finally hits level 20 and is able to accomplish those hard tasks regularly when they couldn't before they get a real sense of advancement. However spreading the DCs out does not prevent bounded accuracy from working. Bounded accuracy could work if they added character level to everything from attacks and damage to spell save DCs. Low numbers is not bounded accuracy. That's an entirely different design choice.


On the other hand, a lot of times, I find it fun and amusing to let the dice dictate some of that as well (with DM providing bonuses and negatives as he feels appropriate (yes, I like DMs to fiat a lot of things to make an awesome story).

Fighter holding the door against a creature?
Oops goblin rolled high and Fighter rolled low - "As you attempt to hold the door closed, you realize the ground is slick from some kind of slimy substance, you feel a goblin slam its body against the door with great force and your footing slips. The door partially opens as you loose your footing and fall to the ground"

Fighter High, Wyrm low - "As you press your while body against the door, using the uneven tiles on the ground for extra leverage, you feel a slam against the door. You are pretty sure the Wyrm knows where you are but for some reason it seems to only be using a half hearted attempt at busting down the door." Round x later, Wyrm rolls high "This time as you hold the door, you can almost sense a build up of pressure a moment before you feel the wooden door crack under a tremendous blow. It seems that the Wyrm is getting serous now".

Those scenarios seem much more interesting to me than "As you hold the door against the goblins, you can tell that they do not have the strength break through" Or "You attempt to hold the door against the Wyrm but he bulls over you with his power".

Both ways work I know and both can have great narrative. I just personally enjoy the chance of even the best person failing by bad luck sometimes. (No, I don't believe in killing someone for a bad roll like that)

I absolutely hate the "some random unrelated thing just happened to throw you off and now you are exactly where you were a minute before" kind of 'fail forward' that many people bring to the game. If you failed because of a bad roll, you failed because your character was not able to do it, not because some random outside event prevented it. Which is why I also feel that the DCs and bonuses should match up to make strong fighter vs. weak goblin contests nearly always go to the fighter.


I'm completely on board with competent adventurers being competent.

I think things start to fall apart, though, when you have (for example) the Fighter getting grappled by a huge snake that outclasses him, and it's impossible for him to escape. Or for a caster to pump their spell save difficulty so high that it's impossible to resist her spells. That sort of thing - where it's much more entertaining if the PCs have a fighting chance.

We don't have to have that at all though. As long as we keep the number spread reasonable the fighter will always have a chance. Unless of course we are talking about a level 1 fighter with a slightly above average strength score going up against a level 20 snake with a high strength, then at that point, yes, the fighter should be unable to escape. That's the difference between level 1 and level 20.

[Kurald Galain]

I expect a system to model a strong fighter winning a door pushing contest against a goblin almost automatically, being even with a ogre, and auto losing against a great wyrm. I don't understand why its bad if a character that invested resources into a check, automatically overcomes easy and moderate challenges. That just means that if a character invested into a check, he is really good at it that the easy stuff is no longer challenging. He passes such things routinely. So what if other party members can't even attempt at things that the invested character passes routinely? It just means that that is a character defining trait, something players remember about him.

A character being able to jump to the top of a house from a standing jump o run through walls doesn't make other characters look bad if they can't perform those same things, as long as they have their own badass things they can do.
Quoted for truth.


I'm completely on board with competent adventurers being competent.

I think things start to fall apart, though, when you have (for example) the Fighter getting grappled by a huge snake that outclasses him, and it's impossible for him to escape. Or for a caster to pump their spell save difficulty so high that it's impossible to resist her spells.
I concur. Automatic success or failure should not extend to attack rolls or defense rolls (e.g. saving throws / grapple escapes) in combat.

And Loki, I think you should start a different thread for that, as I don't think you're discussing what the rest of us are discussing here.

[hawklost]

Quoted for truth.


I concur. Automatic success or failure should not extend to attack rolls or defense rolls (e.g. saving throws / grapple escapes) in combat.

And Loki, I think you should start a different thread for that, as I don't think you're discussing what the rest of us are discussing here.

I get what you are saying but how would you actually change the rules to get your idea in play? If you are set on Automatic Success or Failure for Skill checks (opposed), then what is the different that is required to get the Auto Success?

Is it a +1? +3? +5?
Do you get Auto Success on a normal DC check if you have a +1,3,5 on your skill?

Just saying "this is a better way" without giving more details makes it hard to discuss the merits of your ideas. (Not attacking, trying to discuss the possibilities)

[obryn]

I get what you are saying but how would you actually change the rules to get your idea in play? If you are set on Automatic Success or Failure for Skill checks (opposed), then what is the different that is required to get the Auto Success?
I posted a few ideas upthread, but here's some quickies.

(1) Give Advantage alongside your proficiency bonus on skills you're proficient in.
(2) Use a curved rng for skill rolls - 3d6 or 2d10 spring to mind.
(3) Give automatic success on DCs of (10+ProfBonus) and never call for a roll.
(4) Make it impossible to roll below an 8 or 10 on a skill you're proficient in.

[hawklost]

I posted a few ideas upthread, but here's some quickies.

(1) Give Advantage alongside your proficiency bonus on skills you're proficient in.
(2) Use a curved rng for skill rolls - 3d6 or 2d10 spring to mind.
(3) Give automatic success on DCs of (10+ProfBonus) and never call for a roll.
(4) Make it impossible to roll below an 8 or 10 on a skill you're proficient in.

None of these suggestions fix an issue where a Strong Fighter holds a door against a Goblin trying to break in. If neither the Fighter or Goblin has Proficiency with (Hold Door Skill, Athletics?) but their skill range is far about 8(-1) vs 20(+5) then your way of changes does nothing for the effect. If both are proficient but still have a large gap (-1+2 for goblin, +5+4 for higher level fighter) then again, your quickies do no such thing.

Also, what about a Fighter who is proficient in holding the door against a stronger wyrm who is not proficient? 14 Str and +2 Proficiency is +4, vs a Wyrm who has 28 Str (making it up) for a +9. Why would the Fighter get these advantages or bonuses to holding the door shut then? Doesn't this also go against what Tehnar is requesting?

2 is the closest but still does not account for automatic success/failure with large gap differences, it also means that a DM might want to increase the DC of everything by 1 since there is only a 2-20 skill range instead of 1-20.

[1337 b4k4]

I absolutely hate the "some random unrelated thing just happened to throw you off and now you are exactly where you were a minute before" kind of 'fail forward' that many people bring to the game. If you failed because of a bad roll, you failed because your character was not able to do it, not because some random outside event prevented it. Which is why I also feel that the DCs and bonuses should match up to make strong fighter vs. weak goblin contests nearly always go to the fighter.

Except when you get down to it, this (random thing Y preventing action X) is exactly what the die roll on a skill/ability check is modeling. In reality, any person's skill with something is reasonably consistent within a few percentage points of difference. That's why someone can say "I can bench press X lbs" with confidence and why a Doctor can be confident in their diagnosis that you have the flu. But sometimes, something gets in the way. Our skills aren't static, so sometimes, you're tired today, and you can't bench X. Sometimes the patient really has Ebola and not the flu. As noted, some skill systems model this with an eye towards simulation (GURPS), but those systems tend to require huge skill and ability lists and modifiers and situational adjustments for every eventuality the designers and players can think of. Some systems ( early D&D and 5e included) model this with an eye towards keeping things random. In such a system, the only logical interpretation is "unaccounted for variable Y prevented you from doing X", otherwise we get absurdities like failing spot checks (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0003.html) and we need patch rules like passive perception and Taking 10 / Taking 20, or alternatively, scaling the distance between DCs to nearly eliminate the random element. Those patches are implicit acknowledgments that most of the time, you ability to accomplish something is more static than a single d20 roll will model. And even with those patches, we have to assume that the die roll represents (at least in part) external factors. Otherwise, we still end up with the absurd situation where the rouge can reliably pick out details (Take 10) but 2 minutes later, when they're really trying to see something, can't even see what they normally can see (low d20 roll) and it's just because "eh, he just wasn't up to his usual standards for sight at the moment"

IOW, it helps a lot to view ability checks in 5e as they were more commonly viewed before skill lists were a thing, as throwing yourself to the mercies of the fates and using your natural and trained abilities to sway those mercies slightly in your favor. The die roll is less about "how good is my character" (we know how good they are, it's written on the sheet) but about "how much are the gods smiling upon me today. All things being equal, the goblin with a 9 STR should lose to a human with a 10 STR holding the door shut every single time without fail because the human is stronger. Since that tends to make a boring game, we use the dice to throw a twist onto that, modeling everything from how tired your character is to how weak the door is, to how slippery the floor is. Yes it's random. That's sort of the point of using a random number generator to determine your outcomes.

[Sartharina]

In addition to everything 1337 b4k4 said - Random circumstance causing you to fail is not the same as "Fail Forward" - a guy who fails a climb check because the handhold he had gave out is just as much on his ass at the bottom of a cliff as the guy who's grip gave out when he was trying to reach for the next branch. Neither of them 'failed forward'. Furthermore, even if you do have a 'fail forward', it doesn't mean something outside the character came into effect.

And, if you're rolling a d20, it means there are too many other environmental factors going on making the outcome ambiguous. That's the entire point of the d20 mechanic. Without those, you just compare ability modifiers. (One of the rules in 3e was "The person with the higher ability check always wins in a straight contest).

Having a Goblin never beat a Strong Fighter completely ignores the capacity of heroism and agency within that goblin, in favor of the disempowering inevitability of the Status Quo.

[hawklost]

In addition to everything 1337 b4k4 said - Random circumstance causing you to fail is not the same as "Fail Forward" - a guy who fails a climb check because the handhold he had gave out is just as much on his ass at the bottom of a cliff as the guy who's grip gave out when he was trying to reach for the next branch. Neither of them 'failed forward'. Furthermore, even if you do have a 'fail forward', it doesn't mean something outside the character came into effect.

And, if you're rolling a d20, it means there are too many other environmental factors going on making the outcome ambiguous. That's the entire point of the d20 mechanic. Without those, you just compare ability modifiers. (One of the rules in 3e was "The person with the higher ability check always wins in a straight contest).

Having a Goblin never beat a Strong Fighter completely ignores the capacity of heroism and agency within that goblin, in favor of the disempowering inevitability of the Status Quo.

I am actually enjoying how in many circumstances in 5e, they are making it so that if you fail by less than 5, a minor issue happens, but by more than 5 a major issue.

Take Climbing for example. DC 15
Get 10-15 on your check, well, you just don't climb up (too slippery, couldn't find a good handhold, needed a breather, whatever)
Get 1-9 on your check, well, you slip and fall.

It means (to me) that the challenge can be challenging to the whole group in the sense that even the better climbers +9 say, might not scurry up the Climb but that doesn't promise that they will make it up in the minimum amount of rounds (which could be important if chasing someone who is a better climber than them). While meaning a person who is crappy at climbing (less than +5) has a high chance of failing, but a lower chance of hurting themselves.

[obryn]

None of these suggestions fix an issue where a Strong Fighter holds a door against a Goblin trying to break in. If neither the Fighter or Goblin has Proficiency with (Hold Door Skill, Athletics?) but their skill range is far about 8(-1) vs 20(+5) then your way of changes does nothing for the effect. If both are proficient but still have a large gap (-1+2 for goblin, +5+4 for higher level fighter) then again, your quickies do no such thing.

Also, what about a Fighter who is proficient in holding the door against a stronger wyrm who is not proficient? 14 Str and +2 Proficiency is +4, vs a Wyrm who has 28 Str (making it up) for a +9. Why would the Fighter get these advantages or bonuses to holding the door shut then? Doesn't this also go against what Tehnar is requesting?

2 is the closest but still does not account for automatic success/failure with large gap differences, it also means that a DM might want to increase the DC of everything by 1 since there is only a 2-20 skill range instead of 1-20.
I don't think opposed d20 rolls are ever a good idea. It's probability hell and leads to more swinginess in the outcomes. you're much better off "taking 10" for the PCs' opposition (or the lower-bonus participant).

[MadBear]

Too me a strong fighter losing a door holding contest could easily represent many other factors. Maybe has he was holding the side opposite the hinges, the high goblin roll had them bust the hinges in just the right way to allow them to get through. Maybe, while he was holding the whole door closed, they pushed out a single board on the wooden door, etc.

One of the biggest issues I had with 3.5/PF was that the skill bonuses got so high that is was no longer fun to even try them if you weren't proficient. This lead to poor games where the fighter would never say a word, because god forbid they might have to roll a diplomacy check.

The current system is given definite bonuses to people who are trained and physically suited to those tasks, but even at mid-high levels characters not proficient still have a chance to try what those other people are doing.

Fighter returns back to town after a TPK, and tries to rally the town to his side to avenge his fallen comrades and retrieve there bodies, and in 5E he at least can have a shot at succeeding.

What's worse, is this lead to many situations where the proficient characters chance of success never went up, but rather people untrained chances went down. All DM's that I've played with would arbitrarily raise the DC's so that the highest skilled players wouldn't auto-succeed thereby making encounters not fun. So as that happened other players just took note that they would never have the chance to succeed those checks.

[Knaight]

Having a Goblin never beat a Strong Fighter completely ignores the capacity of heroism and agency within that goblin, in favor of the disempowering inevitability of the Status Quo.

This doesn't hold if they almost never beat them - and as for ignoring the capacity of heroism and agency, I don't buy it. Lets say that they can't just push through the door, period. That doesn't mean that they are without agency, merely that a particular option won't work. Perhaps they're able to hack off the hinges so that the strong fighter pushes the door right out of the frame, and they slip through. Perhaps the door's not all that thick to begin with, they ram a weapon through it into said fighter, then get through while they're reeling backwards due to being stabbed. So on and so forth.

[Kurald Galain]

Lets say that they can't just push through the door, period. That doesn't mean that they are without agency, merely that a particular option won't work.

Precisely.

If you can't use a certain option because you're just pretty bad at that option, then that leads to creativity as players consider other options. If anything "pretty bad" still works 20% of the time, then that leads to players rerolling a few times until they get it right. The former is interesting gameplay, the latter is not.

[hawklost]

Precisely.

If you can't use a certain option because you're just pretty bad at that option, then that leads to creativity as players consider other options. If anything "pretty bad" still works 20% of the time, then that leads to players rerolling a few times until they get it right. The former is interesting gameplay, the latter is not.

Are you making an assumption that a single check is all or nothing? As in, if the Goblin succeeds vs a Fighter in a check while the fighter is holding the door, that the Goblins immediately open it?

There are many times where the DM could easily say, "the door opens slightly, Goblin hands are reaching around the crack to try to force the door open"

DC check again
Goblin succeeds, "The fighter is pushed back by the ferocious strength of the crazed goblin."

fighter succeeds "You put all your strength against the door and it closes shut again, you hear sequels of the goblins as their fingers were crushed(injured, whatever)"

Tie "You can tell that the Goblin is determined to best you and open the door, now that it is partially open, you cannot seem to gain the purchase necessary to force the goblin back"

-------
Its not just a "I Win, You Lose" Scenario unless the DM decides that the check was so far different that it should be (this could be 1 difference or 10 depending on your DM). Otherwise it can be a variable success that requires more than one Check. (This also stops your complaint about too extreme of RNG as the likelihood of the fighter failing 2 checks in a row is very small compared to winning one of the checks.

[Lokiare]

Except when you get down to it, this (random thing Y preventing action X) is exactly what the die roll on a skill/ability check is modeling. In reality, any person's skill with something is reasonably consistent within a few percentage points of difference. That's why someone can say "I can bench press X lbs" with confidence and why a Doctor can be confident in their diagnosis that you have the flu. But sometimes, something gets in the way. Our skills aren't static, so sometimes, you're tired today, and you can't bench X. Sometimes the patient really has Ebola and not the flu. As noted, some skill systems model this with an eye towards simulation (GURPS), but those systems tend to require huge skill and ability lists and modifiers and situational adjustments for every eventuality the designers and players can think of. Some systems ( early D&D and 5e included) model this with an eye towards keeping things random. In such a system, the only logical interpretation is "unaccounted for variable Y prevented you from doing X", otherwise we get absurdities like failing spot checks (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0003.html) and we need patch rules like passive perception and Taking 10 / Taking 20, or alternatively, scaling the distance between DCs to nearly eliminate the random element. Those patches are implicit acknowledgments that most of the time, you ability to accomplish something is more static than a single d20 roll will model. And even with those patches, we have to assume that the die roll represents (at least in part) external factors. Otherwise, we still end up with the absurd situation where the rouge can reliably pick out details (Take 10) but 2 minutes later, when they're really trying to see something, can't even see what they normally can see (low d20 roll) and it's just because "eh, he just wasn't up to his usual standards for sight at the moment"

The problem with this is that any random thing that is significant enough to contribute to success or failure should be calculated in such as the slippery floor raising the DC or the weakness and tiredness of the fighter granting them disadvantage. The randomness of the roll is for all the millions of tiny factors we don't want to model to save time such as a clever goblin pushing on the side furthest away from the hinges or the fighter's low intelligence causing him to try to hold the door near the hinges instead of far away or the shape of the door or the weak rusted old iron hinges or whatever. The tiny things that we don't want to have to model as being +0.3 and -0.7 to a static math comparison. Its not meant to take over giant bonuses like the +2 you would normally get for bracing the door with your weapon. If you are bracing the door with your weapon (like a lock bar) then the DM should flat out give you a bonus like advantage.


IOW, it helps a lot to view ability checks in 5e as they were more commonly viewed before skill lists were a thing, as throwing yourself to the mercies of the fates and using your natural and trained abilities to sway those mercies slightly in your favor. The die roll is less about "how good is my character" (we know how good they are, it's written on the sheet) but about "how much are the gods smiling upon me today. All things being equal, the goblin with a 9 STR should lose to a human with a 10 STR holding the door shut every single time without fail because the human is stronger. Since that tends to make a boring game, we use the dice to throw a twist onto that, modeling everything from how tired your character is to how weak the door is, to how slippery the floor is. Yes it's random. That's sort of the point of using a random number generator to determine your outcomes.

The Mythic play style that many of us have is better supported by less random chance and more player choice. If the players choose to brace the door with a nearby piece of furniture then it was their choice to improve their chances. Randomness should only be used to save time in the case of millions of tiny less than 1 modifiers.


In addition to everything 1337 b4k4 said - Random circumstance causing you to fail is not the same as "Fail Forward" - a guy who fails a climb check because the handhold he had gave out is just as much on his ass at the bottom of a cliff as the guy who's grip gave out when he was trying to reach for the next branch. Neither of them 'failed forward'. Furthermore, even if you do have a 'fail forward', it doesn't mean something outside the character came into effect.

And, if you're rolling a d20, it means there are too many other environmental factors going on making the outcome ambiguous. That's the entire point of the d20 mechanic. Without those, you just compare ability modifiers. (One of the rules in 3e was "The person with the higher ability check always wins in a straight contest).

Having a Goblin never beat a Strong Fighter completely ignores the capacity of heroism and agency within that goblin, in favor of the disempowering inevitability of the Status Quo.

They way they described it was exactly failing forward. They described it as the floor wasn't wet until the fighter failed the roll and started slipping. Instead of telling the fighter the floor was wet and factoring it into the DC so the fighter could choose to brace against a nearby wall instead or to not brace the door at all. The wet floor just came out of nowhere.


Are you making an assumption that a single check is all or nothing? As in, if the Goblin succeeds vs a Fighter in a check while the fighter is holding the door, that the Goblins immediately open it?

There are many times where the DM could easily say, "the door opens slightly, Goblin hands are reaching around the crack to try to force the door open"

DC check again
Goblin succeeds, "The fighter is pushed back by the ferocious strength of the crazed goblin."

fighter succeeds "You put all your strength against the door and it closes shut again, you hear sequels of the goblins as their fingers were crushed(injured, whatever)"

Tie "You can tell that the Goblin is determined to best you and open the door, now that it is partially open, you cannot seem to gain the purchase necessary to force the goblin back"

-------
Its not just a "I Win, You Lose" Scenario unless the DM decides that the check was so far different that it should be (this could be 1 difference or 10 depending on your DM). Otherwise it can be a variable success that requires more than one Check. (This also stops your complaint about too extreme of RNG as the likelihood of the fighter failing 2 checks in a row is very small compared to winning one of the checks.

Mathematically multiple checks makes for a more stable outcome. In fact my preferred system would be to have all players involved roll their checks and then the highest is taken as the actual roll, then everyone else is assisting so they either add +2 or -2 to the primary roll and then tally up whether they succeeded or not, that way there is a good chance that they succeeded. You could also stretch this over multiple rolls for the same situation, however this slows down play and some would accuse you of resurrecting skill challenges. And we all know anything that even remotely resembles 4E should die in a raging inferno.

[Sartharina]

Precisely.

If you can't use a certain option because you're just pretty bad at that option, then that leads to creativity as players consider other options. If anything "pretty bad" still works 20% of the time, then that leads to players rerolling a few times until they get it right. The former is interesting gameplay, the latter is not.

The problem here, though, that pops up in 3e and 4e, is that the game defines the actions you're decent at, and forbids the actions you're bad at. And has the game scale to challenge the guy who's proficient, not the ones that aren't.

It's not that the Goblin can't break down the door - it's that only the Ogre can break down the door. The fighter isn't strong and skilled enough. If you don't have a proficiency in a skill, you might as well not even bother.


The problem with this is that any random thing that is significant enough to contribute to success or failure should be calculated in such as the slippery floor raising the DC or the weakness and tiredness of the fighter granting them disadvantage. The randomness of the roll is for all the millions of tiny factors we don't want to model to save time such as a clever goblin pushing on the side furthest away from the hinges or the fighter's low intelligence causing him to try to hold the door near the hinges instead of far away or the shape of the door or the weak rusted old iron hinges or whatever. The tiny things that we don't want to have to model as being +0.3 and -0.7 to a static math comparison. Its not meant to take over giant bonuses like the +2 you would normally get for bracing the door with your weapon. If you are bracing the door with your weapon (like a lock bar) then the DM should flat out give you a bonus like advantage.Would it help if you remember that the d20 is a +1-20 Circumstance Modifier to a check?

[Tholomyes]

They way they described it was exactly failing forward. They described it as the floor wasn't wet until the fighter failed the roll and started slipping. Instead of telling the fighter the floor was wet and factoring it into the DC so the fighter could choose to brace against a nearby wall instead or to not brace the door at all. The wet floor just came out of nowhere.I'm not entirely sure you understand what "Failing forward" means. Failing forward is a DMing tool of keeping failure from impeding progress in an adventure, by making failure be a complication, rather than a doorstop.

For example, say you're trying to hunt down a member of a league of assassins, and so the party attempts to roll an investigation check to find some clues. A failure without failing forward might mean they don't find any clues. This would make the story grind to a halt, as the party struggles to come up with another way to deal with the problem. A failure with failing forward means that instead of finding nothing, they walk into an ambush, but after the fight is over, they manage to find some clue that gives them a direction to go forward.

What was described was simply a descriptor as to why a check might fail. That isn't failing forward but rather the fact that the DM being the players' eyes and ears. The fact that the floor was wet wasn't why the check failed, but rather an ex post facto explanation. Had the DM said the floor was slick, so the party decided to brace it with a chair instead (with a potential circumstance bonus, or negation of a penalty), the ex post facto explanation would have been that the chair leg was weak. Or what have you. The point is that if there is a chance of failure, having such ex post facto explanations is important. And if there is no chance for failure, why are you even rolling, or even, why aren't you playing a diceless system, instead?

[Lokiare]

The problem here, though, that pops up in 3e and 4e, is that the game defines the actions you're decent at, and forbids the actions you're bad at. And has the game scale to challenge the guy who's proficient, not the ones that aren't.

It's not that the Goblin can't break down the door - it's that only the Ogre can break down the door. The fighter isn't strong and skilled enough. If you don't have a proficiency in a skill, you might as well not even bother.

Would it help if you remember that the d20 is a +1-20 Circumstance Modifier to a check?

Nope, because part of my play style (Mythic is what I call it, but it includes the "fun as an obstacle course" type of fun) is the idea that win and lose is clearly defined. So that knowing the floor is slick, the player can choose a different course of action based on their knowledge that it is unlikely to succeed, or they can choose to hold the door because they know that goblins are unlikely to succeed at breaking it down. So no, the random roll shouldn't factor in more than the stats of the environment, characters, and creatures involved.

For those people that like random chance, just flip a coin and be done with it.


I'm not entirely sure you understand what "Failing forward" means. Failing forward is a DMing tool of keeping failure from impeding progress in an adventure, by making failure be a complication, rather than a doorstop.

For example, say you're trying to hunt down a member of a league of assassins, and so the party attempts to roll an investigation check to find some clues. A failure without failing forward might mean they don't find any clues. This would make the story grind to a halt, as the party struggles to come up with another way to deal with the problem. A failure with failing forward means that instead of finding nothing, they walk into an ambush, but after the fight is over, they manage to find some clue that gives them a direction to go forward.

What was described was simply a descriptor as to why a check might fail. That isn't failing forward but rather the fact that the DM being the players' eyes and ears. The fact that the floor was wet wasn't why the check failed, but rather an ex post facto explanation. Had the DM said the floor was slick, so the party decided to brace it with a chair instead (with a potential circumstance bonus, or negation of a penalty), the ex post facto explanation would have been that the chair leg was weak. Or what have you. The point is that if there is a chance of failure, having such ex post facto explanations is important. And if there is no chance for failure, why are you even rolling, or even, why aren't you playing a diceless system, instead?

I'm with the Angry DM on this one:
http://angrydm.com/2012/12/five-simple-rules-for-dating-my-teenaged-skill-system/


Whereas I actively avoided bringing up the “making failure interesting” and “failing forward” bulls$&%. Hahaha. Can you tell I get a little worked up about skills?

First of all, in essence I am saying that you should only roll when failure is interesting. That is, if failure doesn’t cost the party something or carry some consequence, you should not roll. The word interesting is kind of a useless word. Because it is utterly subjective. Telling DMs to “make failure interesting” isn’t helpful. Telling them what makes failure interesting is useful. In this case, it has to cost the party something or endanger them or kill them. Costs or consequences.

The concept of failing forward, however, rankles me. I’m not going to lie. For a couple of reasons. First of all, its a waste of time in a focused, goal-oriented adventure. Take the “escort the prisoner” example you offered. The party is trying to accomplish something – solve a mystery, achieve a goal, what have you. If they fail at something, they have a set back and have to find an alternate route to their goal. They can’t get the documents and need to find another bluff to pull or another source of the information they need.

But that “failure forward” means they still get what they were after, except we have to be distracted by some unrelated garbage first. I don’t want to waste time playing out the PCs escorting some felon to prison. Especially because, in order to make that interesting, I need to have an escape attempt. Its a distraction. Stop doing what you were doing.

I want failure to require the players to find a different path forward, not force them to wander a mile out of their way then pick up where they left off.

Moreover, failing forward is not failing. It says that no matter what, you will succeed at the adventure. Its just a matter of how much you have to put up with before we all decide its time to end the story. That’s fine if you want to tell “an interesting story,” but it is not a challenge. The players don’t accomplish something. They don’t solve something. They just either succeed forward or fail forward until they get to the end.

Now, if you want to play that way, I won’t begrudge you. But I wouldn’t run a mystery like that. A well-crafted mystery is a complex thing and it is very hard to create a good one players can solve. I would caution any DM from rewriting reality to make failures fail forward and distracting the party with extraneous sidetracks.

I will also reiterate that the concept of “making failure interesting” and “failing forward” is too focused on the outcome of random die rolls to be the source of what’s interesting in the story. The focus is on the choice they made. The fact that the party chose to impersonate police officers as their approach should be the focus, not the fact that they failed at it by “succeeding too well.” In the end, it comes down to whether or not you are willing to let the PCs lose: http://angrydm.com/2010/07/winning-dd/

Further, knowing whether you have a decent chance of success or not is a key component to the Mythic 'fun as an obstacle course' play style.

[Tholomyes]

I'm with the Angry DM on this one:
http://angrydm.com/2012/12/five-simple-rules-for-dating-my-teenaged-skill-system/Whether you agree that failing forward is a good tactic (personally, I don't think it's a black-and-white issue, and that failing forward is great for many cases, where pure failure isn't interesting, but sometimes the heroes do need to fail when the skill roll fails, and then dust themselves off, and try a different tactic), the point I was making wasn't about its value as a DMing tactic, but rather your use of the term in the case of the slippery floor scenario. In the case of a monster trying to bust down the door, failure always (well 99% of the time; I'm sure someone will chime in with a 1% exception) means that the monster busts through the door. In the slippery-floor scenario, it wasn't failing forward, since the outcome for failure was the same as the specified outcome for failure for such a check. It's just that the slippery-floor was added as an ex post facto description for why the check failed, even when the goblins constitute a weaker opposition than (presumably) whoever was holding back the door.

[1337 b4k4]

The problem with this is that any random thing that is significant enough to contribute to success or failure should be calculated in such as the slippery floor raising the DC or the weakness and tiredness of the fighter granting them disadvantage. The randomness of the roll is for all the millions of tiny factors we don't want to model to save time such as a clever goblin pushing on the side furthest away from the hinges or the fighter's low intelligence causing him to try to hold the door near the hinges instead of far away or the shape of the door or the weak rusted old iron hinges or whatever. The tiny things that we don't want to have to model as being +0.3 and -0.7 to a static math comparison. Its not meant to take over giant bonuses like the +2 you would normally get for bracing the door with your weapon. If you are bracing the door with your weapon (like a lock bar) then the DM should flat out give you a bonus like advantage.

Yes, this is one way of playing the game, having modifiers and spelling out every little thing that could possibly be important ahead of time:
"Ok, you're in the room and the door is closed, the goblin is coming up on you now. The floor is wet stone, so it's slick but not slippery, the door is pine, so not particularly sturdy but not paper thing either. You're out of breath and there's dust in the air. The hinges look sort of weak. Your muscles are sore from the fighting, and the cut on your hands is stinging like crazy. The door doesn't quite fit in the frame properly. The handle latch looked weak, maybe but you didn't really give it a good look while you were running by. Do you just lie against the door or do you brace yourself? Do you use your weapon? Where are you positioning your hands? How hard are you bracing? Do you brace the latch or the hinges? Do you put some sand down to give you more traction?" Of course, once you've gone through all of that, and done all the math for the modifiers for everything why are you bothering to roll in the first place? After all the modifiers to the fighters STR score, are they still stronger than the goblin? Then the door holds.

The other way is to assume that the characters are competent and doing everything reasonable to do to accomplish a given task when they roll. Of course the players are bracing themselves against the door the best they can. Their goal is to prevent the goblin from getting through. Of course they're using their weapons as part of this, but in such a way as to make them retrievable if it fails.

Obviously there's a balance to be struck with skill rolls, "I diplomance the king" is just as dumb as "I search the desk, opening all the drawers, feeling around for hidden catches, turning the drawers over, looking under the desk and behind it, running my dagger along the surfaces looking for brakes. Oh but I still missed the key hidden in the desk because I rolled a 2". D&D Next has in general opted for the second style of skill checks. Assuming competence and then rolling most non-obvious decisions ("hey, can we stick the desk in front of the door?") into advantage / disadvantage. Yes there are still some static modifier, but they're much fewer and far between.




The Mythic play style that many of us have is better supported by less random chance and more player choice. If the players choose to brace the door with a nearby piece of furniture then it was their choice to improve their chances. Randomness should only be used to save time in the case of millions of tiny less than 1 modifiers.

Which is fine, but then why are you playing a game that resolves skill checks with an RNG with a modifier range of 1-20? Unless your "millions of tiny less than 1 modifiers" has the potential to add up to a +20, you're using an RNG that's too large for the goal. You should be using a d4 or even a d2 at that point. Don't get me wrong, we would be having a completely different conversation if D&D used another skill resolution system, like GURPS does, but WotC is hell bent on "one mechanic to rule them all" and in that case, we need to use the skill system that makes sense for the tools we're using, and frankly, the 3.x way of billions of static DCs and billions of static modifiers followed by weird patch rules just doesn't work. It is my opinion (and my experience) that the system that 5e appears to be aiming for is much more effective for the given tools.



They way they described it was exactly failing forward. They described it as the floor wasn't wet until the fighter failed the roll and started slipping. Instead of telling the fighter the floor was wet and factoring it into the DC so the fighter could choose to brace against a nearby wall instead or to not brace the door at all. The wet floor just came out of nowhere.

Which has nothing to do with failing forward. The wet floor is an interpretation of the results, just like if the wet floor has been thrown into the DC already, the statement "you just don't have the strength" is an interpretation. Why didn't the fighter know already they didn't have the strength to brace the door alone so that they could choose not the brace it at all or brace against the wall? It's the same thing. The RNG is designed to introduce randomness. If you want less randomness, use the RNG less.



Mathematically multiple checks makes for a more stable outcome. In fact my preferred system would be to have all players involved roll their checks and then the highest is taken as the actual roll, then everyone else is assisting so they either add +2 or -2 to the primary roll and then tally up whether they succeeded or not, that way there is a good chance that they succeeded. You could also stretch this over multiple rolls for the same situation, however this slows down play and some would accuse you of resurrecting skill challenges. And we all know anything that even remotely resembles 4E should die in a raging inferno.

Aside from your snark being completely unhelpful and wrong, there is nothing in the rules anywhere that implies or states that you should resolve all events with a single role. It's a meme that developed as an extension of 1d20 equalling 1 attack. Somehow as a community we got it into our heads that 1d20 should therefore equal one entire action. Sometimes that's true, but there's plenty of times that it shouldn't be. Bracing a door against being busted down is absolutely one of them. Ability checks are about changing the state of things, they don't have to change the state completely. A goblin that succeeds on a door bash doesn't have to throw the door open, just nudging it loose or wedging it a bit has changed the state of things towards what the goblin is trying to accomplish (getting through the door). The problem is, we keep taking large goals and assuming we should resolve them the same way we resolve small goals. Using a single skill check to resolve busting down the braced door, or sneaking into the castle or anything like that is equivalent to using a since attack roll to resolve killing the dragon.



Further, knowing whether you have a decent chance of success or not is a key component to the Mythic 'fun as an obstacle course' play style.

You do know what your chances of success are. DC X vs d20 roll + mod. The difference is the degree to which you can modify that DC as a player. 5e tries to reduce the modification to "can I get dis/advantage". 3.x and 4e preferred a more detailed inventory of everything going on approach. Either is a valid approach, but for a single d20 roll, I think the 5e method is better. Especially because if you want to, you can get as detailed as you want (and thus reduce the RNG impact) with the 5e method because the system just assumes a wide swing. By comparison (and one of the common complaints about 3.x and why 4e had the "everything goes up by half level all the time" mechanic) if the system assumes everyone will be measuring out all the details, then those that don't want to do that are either stuck as ineffective, or stuck with having their DM have to do all that ahead of time for them (or in the case of 4e, getting better at everything all the time).

[Human Paragon 3]

I'm failing to see the point of the goblin/ogre/fighter argument. In practice, it will not matter. It will be fun when a goblin breaks through the door and you have to deal with it. It will also be fun when a fighter can hold the door against a marauding ogre. How many times do you think a fighter is going to have to hold a door vs. a goblin anyway? If he does it 4 times a year, and one of those times the goblin breaks through, who the heck cares?

Adventures are supposed to be exciting, not predictable. That's the point of the roll.

[Lokiare]

Yes, this is one way of playing the game, having modifiers and spelling out every little thing that could possibly be important ahead of time:
"Ok, you're in the room and the door is closed, the goblin is coming up on you now. The floor is wet stone, so it's slick but not slippery, the door is pine, so not particularly sturdy but not paper thing either. You're out of breath and there's dust in the air. The hinges look sort of weak. Your muscles are sore from the fighting, and the cut on your hands is stinging like crazy. The door doesn't quite fit in the frame properly. The handle latch looked weak, maybe but you didn't really give it a good look while you were running by. Do you just lie against the door or do you brace yourself? Do you use your weapon? Where are you positioning your hands? How hard are you bracing? Do you brace the latch or the hinges? Do you put some sand down to give you more traction?" Of course, once you've gone through all of that, and done all the math for the modifiers for everything why are you bothering to roll in the first place? After all the modifiers to the fighters STR score, are they still stronger than the goblin? Then the door holds.

That's pretty close, the reason we roll is that we don't want to have millions of tiny modifiers that would take up time. Instead we use a d20 roll. We do this because 5E has it as its main resolution mechanic. I would be perfectly happy with a lesser RNG such as a d10 or even a d6. Unfortunately we have to work within the framework of the d20, in order to counter the D20 RNG we make as many things matter that we can without slowing the game down. We also try to do this ahead of time by calculating the bonuses the Fighter gets ahead of time and the things that apply to the DC during prep. Which means that sometimes it will be nearly impossible for the fighter to hold off the dragon and nearly impossible for the goblin to bust down the door. You'll even note that 5E says to roll only when there is a chance that the action can succeed or fail. If its automatically going to fail you don't roll. If its automatically going to succeed you don't roll. I merely want that baked into the math.

In 4E to use stealth in combat the player (or creature) rolls a stealth check and compares it to the passive perception of anyone with a line of sight (the thing trying to use stealth has to meet prerequisites to even try to stealth such as having total cover or complete concealment). Because of the math you can specialize in stealth so much that minions and normal monsters don't actually have a chance to see you (their passive perception is less than the modifiers to the stealth players roll).

This is good for the mythic play style because those things that are not optimized or are naturally unable to detect stealthy characters don't even have a chance, because they shouldn't have a chance. A strength 10 goblin without proficiency trying to push a door down on a strength 20 fighter with proficiency in athletics should literally auto-fail. 5E leaves it up to the DM. I personally like it built into the system so the game plays the same from table to table and the players know that the goblin has no chance. That actually speeds up play much more than how 5E does it.


The other way is to assume that the characters are competent and doing everything reasonable to do to accomplish a given task when they roll. Of course the players are bracing themselves against the door the best they can. Their goal is to prevent the goblin from getting through. Of course they're using their weapons as part of this, but in such a way as to make them retrievable if it fails.

Obviously there's a balance to be struck with skill rolls, "I diplomance the king" is just as dumb as "I search the desk, opening all the drawers, feeling around for hidden catches, turning the drawers over, looking under the desk and behind it, running my dagger along the surfaces looking for brakes. Oh but I still missed the key hidden in the desk because I rolled a 2". D&D Next has in general opted for the second style of skill checks. Assuming competence and then rolling most non-obvious decisions ("hey, can we stick the desk in front of the door?") into advantage / disadvantage. Yes there are still some static modifier, but they're much fewer and far between.

Exactly. For the mythic play style it falls more toward the players knowing their chances and deciding whether to attempt tasks instead of using other methods. For instance in your desk searching example. Its better for the Mythic style players to know they have almost no chance of finding the hidden object so they can decide whether its worth it to search the desk for 10 minutes or just use the 'locate object' ritual which will take about 10 minutes to cast.


Which is fine, but then why are you playing a game that resolves skill checks with an RNG with a modifier range of 1-20? Unless your "millions of tiny less than 1 modifiers" has the potential to add up to a +20, you're using an RNG that's too large for the goal. You should be using a d4 or even a d2 at that point. Don't get me wrong, we would be having a completely different conversation if D&D used another skill resolution system, like GURPS does, but WotC is hell bent on "one mechanic to rule them all" and in that case, we need to use the skill system that makes sense for the tools we're using, and frankly, the 3.x way of billions of static DCs and billions of static modifiers followed by weird patch rules just doesn't work. It is my opinion (and my experience) that the system that 5e appears to be aiming for is much more effective for the given tools.

Again, the d20 was picked by WotC. Did you know that tasks like finding secret doors or traps in 0E, 1E, and 2E used a d6 to decide if you succeeded or not? A smaller RNG would be desirable, but we work around that by calculating in all the different factors involved so that the goblin only has a 5% chance if that of beating the fighter in the door contest.


Which has nothing to do with failing forward. The wet floor is an interpretation of the results, just like if the wet floor has been thrown into the DC already, the statement "you just don't have the strength" is an interpretation. Why didn't the fighter know already they didn't have the strength to brace the door alone so that they could choose not the brace it at all or brace against the wall? It's the same thing. The RNG is designed to introduce randomness. If you want less randomness, use the RNG less.

Its the same thing. In failing forward you have some brand new thing come in that wasn't revealed to the players to be an excuse for failure rather than, "Sorry, that goblin just overpowered you." basically I see it as making excuses for a badly designed math based probability system.


Aside from your snark being completely unhelpful and wrong, there is nothing in the rules anywhere that implies or states that you should resolve all events with a single role. It's a meme that developed as an extension of 1d20 equalling 1 attack. Somehow as a community we got it into our heads that 1d20 should therefore equal one entire action. Sometimes that's true, but there's plenty of times that it shouldn't be. Bracing a door against being busted down is absolutely one of them. Ability checks are about changing the state of things, they don't have to change the state completely. A goblin that succeeds on a door bash doesn't have to throw the door open, just nudging it loose or wedging it a bit has changed the state of things towards what the goblin is trying to accomplish (getting through the door). The problem is, we keep taking large goals and assuming we should resolve them the same way we resolve small goals. Using a single skill check to resolve busting down the braced door, or sneaking into the castle or anything like that is equivalent to using a since attack roll to resolve killing the dragon.

No snark intended. I'm sure you and your group house ruled multiple rolls in, because frankly it makes more sense, but in every edition of D&D skill checks have always been a single roll, right up until 4E when they invented skill challenges. In 0E and 1E you rolled a single d6 to see if you detected a trap or secret door. You rolled a single d20 to try to get under your ability score in 1E to see if an action succeeded. Its all in there. I could pull quotes from books, but I don't have the time now. I'm sure someone else can do it.

I do agree though the more rolls you throw at it the more reliable the bonuses and penalties become.


You do know what your chances of success are. DC X vs d20 roll + mod. The difference is the degree to which you can modify that DC as a player. 5e tries to reduce the modification to "can I get dis/advantage". 3.x and 4e preferred a more detailed inventory of everything going on approach. Either is a valid approach, but for a single d20 roll, I think the 5e method is better. Especially because if you want to, you can get as detailed as you want (and thus reduce the RNG impact) with the 5e method because the system just assumes a wide swing. By comparison (and one of the common complaints about 3.x and why 4e had the "everything goes up by half level all the time" mechanic) if the system assumes everyone will be measuring out all the details, then those that don't want to do that are either stuck as ineffective, or stuck with having their DM have to do all that ahead of time for them (or in the case of 4e, getting better at everything all the time).

Actually the DM doesn't have to reveal the DC to the players at all. So no without factoring in things like slick floors, rusty hinges, badly fitting doors, and other things the players don't really have any way to gauge their chances of success or failure. Especially since the game is now about gaining advantage while at the same time granting disadvantage which if both sides are successful just puts them back on an even playing field. There is no granularity. There is no stacking of advantages to ensure success. After gaining advantage from one thing you might as well not try to get more because the game doesn't allow you to apply it. Basically they take away the choices and improvisation of the players in order to simplify the math a little bit. Really its just badly designed from that perspective.

[Human Paragon 3]

Its the same thing. In failing forward you have some brand new thing come in that wasn't revealed to the players to be an excuse for failure rather than, "Sorry, that goblin just overpowered you." basically I see it as making excuses for a badly designed math based probability system.



That's not what failing forward is.

Failing forward isn't explaining how you failed, failing forward is having you succeed and adding a twist.

This would be failing forward:

"The goblin slams into the door and you push all your weight against it, shattering the vile of acid in your pack! The goblin curses you from the other side of the door as you feel dissolving liquid running down your leg... and think about the valuable notes that the acid might be dissolving. What do you do?"

It's honestly baffling to me that you could read that entire AngryDM article on failing forward and still not understand this. Either you're being deliberately stubborn, or there's no help for you.

[Tholomyes]

That's not what failing forward is.

Failing forward isn't explaining how you failed, failing forward is having you succeed and adding a twist.

This would be failing forward:

"The goblin slams into the door and you push all your weight against it, shattering the vile of acid in your pack! The goblin curses you from the other side of the door as you feel dissolving liquid running down your leg... and think about the valuable notes that the acid might be dissolving. What do you do?"

It's honestly baffling to me that you could read that entire AngryDM article on failing forward and still not understand this. Either you're being deliberately stubborn, or there's no help for you.
To be fair, the article was just about skill checks (though, admittedly it's one of those page-by-page articles, which I hate), the comments about failing forward were more than enough, though, to give a clear explanation as to what failing forward is, as were the numerous times people tried explaining to Loki what Failing forward actually means.

[1337 b4k4]

This is good for the mythic play style because those things that are not optimized or are naturally unable to detect stealthy characters don't even have a chance, because they shouldn't have a chance. A strength 10 goblin without proficiency trying to push a door down on a strength 20 fighter with proficiency in athletics should literally auto-fail. 5E leaves it up to the DM. I personally like it built into the system so the game plays the same from table to table and the players know that the goblin has no chance. That actually speeds up play much more than how 5E does it.

And it has the trade-off of requiring you to invest character building resources into things that make up standard fantasy tropes. To use the stealth example, sneaking past the guards or sneaking into past the sleeping dragon is a standard fantasy trope. When playing as an adventurer, you would expect to be able to sneak. Yet for system which aim for more realistic skill systems, being able to do this within a reasonable range of successes requires that you either invest precious character building resources into these skills as opposed to other flavorful or concept supporting resources (pretty much the definition of a feat tax) or you have massive amounts of character building resources to make a character thats rounded enough (for example in GURPS 3e, an "above average" character should start with [IIRC] 150 CP. To even come close to beginning to model a D&D character, you need closer to 250-300 CP and that's before you start investing in magic). The final alternative is to do what 4e did and just make you automatically get better for no reason just to keep up with the game math. Without one of these compensation methods (for shortness as we continue this discussion, "Feat Tax", "Bonus Points" or "Auto-Leveling" respectively, with no intended attachment to any baggage those terms might normally carry), you wind up with players that have to sit out of a scene (or worse, can't even succeed at the scene) while other players can more or less breeze through it. To be completely fair, a lot of that can be helped by having multiple paths to accomplishing the same goal, but even that can have the feeling of rail roading.




Exactly. For the mythic play style it falls more toward the players knowing their chances and deciding whether to attempt tasks instead of using other methods. For instance in your desk searching example. Its better for the Mythic style players to know they have almost no chance of finding the hidden object so they can decide whether its worth it to search the desk for 10 minutes or just use the 'locate object' ritual which will take about 10 minutes to cast.

But again, in either system they do know.



Again, the d20 was picked by WotC. Did you know that tasks like finding secret doors or traps in 0E, 1E, and 2E used a d6 to decide if you succeeded or not? A smaller RNG would be desirable, but we work around that by calculating in all the different factors involved so that the goblin only has a 5% chance if that of beating the fighter in the door contest.

1) Sure, the d20 was picked by WotC. But you picked D&D for your game.

2) Yes I did. I also know that it was a chance in 6 to find (specifically 1 in 6 normally, 2 in 6 for certain races and certain actions and up to 4 in 6 for thieves(?) in specific cases). There was no DC, no modifiers, no check. You didn't roll a d6 + your int mod vs a DC of 5 or 3. It was just a flat chance of success or failure. A skewed coin flip in a sense, and something as I recall you mention is not something you like. It wasn't using the d6 the way we use the d20, and so for the purposes of my argument was not using a smaller RNG.



Its the same thing. In failing forward you have some brand new thing come in that wasn't revealed to the players to be an excuse for failure rather than, "Sorry, that goblin just overpowered you." basically I see it as making excuses for a badly designed math based probability system.

It's not the same thing. Interpretation of the results != failing forward and failing forward != interpretation of the results. Failing forward is about not allowing failures to bring the game to a halt. "Sorry you failed you streetwise check to find the base of thieves there are no more clues" or alternatively "You failed your streetwise check, try again. You failed your streetwise check, try again. You failed your streetwise check, try again. You failed your streetwise check, try again. You failed your streetwise check, try again. You succeeded at your streetwise check, you find out the thieves are in the sewers." Failing forward is about keeping the game moving by turning failure points into additional story paths and hooks, and about avoiding forcing your players to roll for something they're going to get anyway (solving a similar problem to Take 20)



No snark intended. I'm sure you and your group house ruled multiple rolls in, because frankly it makes more sense, but in every edition of D&D skill checks have always been a single roll, right up until 4E when they invented skill challenges. In 0E and 1E you rolled a single d6 to see if you detected a trap or secret door. You rolled a single d20 to try to get under your ability score in 1E to see if an action succeeded. Its all in there. I could pull quotes from books, but I don't have the time now. I'm sure someone else can do it.

No, they haven't been. The d6 checks were passive checks to see if you noticed these things in passing. If you were actively searching, you described what you did, there were no skill checks involved. Never in the rules have they said "when you want to accomplish a goal, you should roll one and only one d20 and the whole success or failure of your goal hinges on this one roll.



Actually the DM doesn't have to reveal the DC to the players at all.

If they don't reveal the DC, you don't know your chances.

[Kurald Galain]

The problem here, though, that pops up in 3e and 4e, is that the game defines the actions you're decent at, and forbids the actions you're bad at. And has the game scale to challenge the guy who's proficient, not the ones that aren't.
Not exactly.

In 3E, climbing a tree is simply DC 10, regardless of who your character is. So if you have a character with +8 on climbing checks (which is pretty easy at level 1, if you want) then you can reliably climb trees.
In 4E, climbing a tree is probably an "easy" DC, which means that a higher level character has the same chance to climb it as a lower level character (because your skill goes up by half level, and the skill DC goes up by the same amount).
In 5E, they've removed the "half level" scaling, so again a higher level character has the same chance as a lower level character (technically it improves by 10% over ten levels, whooo!), except that at some arbitrary point the DM may decide that you now have advantage on climbing trees.

So the whole issue, again, is the philosophy that a random chances of failure constitutes a "challenge" and that even characters who are supposed to be good at some task need to be "challenged" by giving them a random chance of failure.


Adventures are supposed to be exciting, not predictable. That's the point of the roll.
If you need a 30% chance of failure on everything in order to make your adventure exciting, I think you need a better DM.

[hawklost]

Not exactly.

In 3E, climbing a tree is simply DC 10, regardless of who your character is. So if you have a character with +8 on climbing checks (which is pretty easy at level 1, if you want) then you can reliably climb trees.
In 4E, climbing a tree is probably an "easy" DC, which means that a higher level character has the same chance to climb it as a lower level character (because your skill goes up by half level, and the skill DC goes up by the same amount).
In 5E, they've removed the "half level" scaling, so again a higher level character has the same chance as a lower level character (technically it improves by 10% over ten levels, whooo!), except that at some arbitrary point the DM may decide that you now have advantage on climbing trees.

So the whole issue, again, is the philosophy that a random chances of failure constitutes a "challenge" and that even characters who are supposed to be good at some task need to be "challenged" by giving them a random chance of failure.


If you need a 30% chance of failure on everything in order to make your adventure exciting, I think you need a better DM.

I don't remember anywhere in any of the DnD games where it says climbing a tree is always a DC 10 check. There are many reasons why a Tree might be a harder check or an easier one (or even none at all). Unless you can show me where it says that climbing a tree is a DC 10 check always and everywhere, you are just making up random claims. (Also, if an example of climbing in the PHB or DMG, it does not mean that it is always that, just that it is a base example to show how DCs work). Even in 3.x and 4e it calls out that a DM should modify the DC of something when it is appropriate.

Climbing a Tree with DC 10 (because it is that kind of tree), Same tree at level 1 and max level
Wizard
3e - at level 1, "fail, fail, fail, fail, succeed". At level 20 "succeed". What has the wizard done other than wander around the world to gain this skill in climbing trees? ... Nope, nothing
4e - at level 1, "fail, fail, fail, fail, succeed". At level 30 "fail, fail, fail, fail, succeed". Why has this tree become more of a challenge? I gain skills ranks by wandering but this tree seems to have as well!
5e - at level 1, "fail, fail, fail, fail, succeed". At level 20 "fail, fail, fail, fail, succeed". Why can't I climb this tree still? Oh wait, throughout all my adventures, I never really practiced climbing much and therefor never got stronger at it. Well, shucks, I guess this tree will always be a challenge unless I practice climbing.

Out of all 3 styles, I prefer the explanation of 5e over 4e for why the tree is still a challenge. And I always disliked the logic that in 3e the person just gained random skill increases in everything, even if it wasn't something they ever even attempted on an adventure.

---------
As for your last statement, if your DM is making you roll a failure chance when there is no real consequence instead of letting you roleplay it out, maybe you need a better DM. DCs should only be used when there is a consequence for your failure/success, not just because all trees require a DC to climb them.

30% chance of failure when trying to climb this tree while being chased by rabid dogs? Cool
30% chance of failure when trying to climb this tree because I am bored and feel like climbing a simple tree? Why the heck is my DM being a jerk about this and having me roll?

[Chaosvii7]

(and the skill DC goes up by the same amount)

I have never met, and hope I never meet, a single DM who has run 4.0 and played by this rule. Ever. A skill check shouldn't get arbitrarily more frustrating because you're getting better at it via investment of player resources.

[1337 b4k4]

If you need a 30% chance of failure on everything in order to make your adventure exciting, I think you need a better DM.

I'd argue I don't want to play with a DM who would normally make me (actively, leaving out the passive / secret checks) roll form something with less than a 30% chance of binary failure (or success). Personally I'd probably go as low as 25% but that's about it. Below that and it starts feeling more like a waste of time.

[Knaight]

It's not the same thing. Interpretation of the results != failing forward and failing forward != interpretation of the results. Failing forward is about not allowing failures to bring the game to a halt. "Sorry you failed you streetwise check to find the base of thieves there are no more clues" or alternatively "You failed your streetwise check, try again. You failed your streetwise check, try again. You failed your streetwise check, try again. You failed your streetwise check, try again. You failed your streetwise check, try again. You succeeded at your streetwise check, you find out the thieves are in the sewers." Failing forward is about keeping the game moving by turning failure points into additional story paths and hooks, and about avoiding forcing your players to roll for something they're going to get anyway (solving a similar problem to Take 20)

Exactly. The typical failing forward interpretation here would involve finding information - maybe information the base of thieves deliberately fed to you, maybe information that is is just wrong but was at least believed to be true. Either way, there's information to follow up on - it keeps things moving, but not in the direction the characters want. The ambush scenario would also be fitting.

[obryn]

Climbing a Tree with DC 10 (because it is that kind of tree), Same tree at level 1 and max level
Wizard
3e - at level 1, "fail, fail, fail, fail, succeed". At level 20 "succeed". What has the wizard done other than wander around the world to gain this skill in climbing trees? ... Nope, nothing
4e - at level 1, "fail, fail, fail, fail, succeed". At level 30 "fail, fail, fail, fail, succeed". Why has this tree become more of a challenge? I gain skills ranks by wandering but this tree seems to have as well!
5e - at level 1, "fail, fail, fail, fail, succeed". At level 20 "fail, fail, fail, fail, succeed". Why can't I climb this tree still? Oh wait, throughout all my adventures, I never really practiced climbing much and therefor never got stronger at it. Well, shucks, I guess this tree will always be a challenge unless I practice climbing.
No, in 4e, the same kind of tree at level 30 is still DC 10. (No, really, it's right there in the Athletics rules.)

A warped demonic tree composed of elemental magma with toothy maws opening up randomly by your handholds? Now that's the sort of tree a Level 30 character will find challenging and the DC should be pretty darn high.

[1337 b4k4]

No, in 4e, the same kind of tree at level 30 is still DC 10. (No, really, it's right there in the Athletics rules.)

A warped demonic tree composed of elemental magma with toothy maws opening up randomly by your handholds? Now that's the sort of tree a Level 30 character will find challenging and the DC should be pretty darn high.

Sort of. This whole problem withe the 4e DCs was a presentation issue on WotC's end. On the one hand, your interpretation is the one that makes the most sense (the table on Pg 42 was to give you guidelines for appropriate difficulties). On the other hand, their very example in the text of using that table belied that interpretation by having the example DM pick the DC for swinging from the chandelier off the table based on the character level, suggesting that if the same character had attempted this 5 levels later, the DC would be higher.

The other side of this coin is of course that DMs shouldn't have to replace all their trees with denomic elemental magma trees just to make a climbing challenge for characters who aren't specializing in climbing. It's sort of the opposite problem that 3e had. In 3e if you don't specialize and train, the world will out level you. In 4e, if the DM doesn't keep upping the stakes, you out level the world.

[hawklost]

No, in 4e, the same kind of tree at level 30 is still DC 10. (No, really, it's right there in the Athletics rules.)

A warped demonic tree composed of elemental magma with toothy maws opening up randomly by your handholds? Now that's the sort of tree a Level 30 character will find challenging and the DC should be pretty darn high.

alright, but since Kurald Galain was the one claiming it was an Easy DC and changed with the levels, I went with his interpretation. This would only change my opinion that 4e and 3e are just as bad as each other and that 5e fits my personal way of seeing skill gaining.

Also, remind me never to climb trees in your campaigns.