New PHB-Havers: Thoughts? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Theodoxus

2014-08-19, 11:58 PM

I too got my book today. From the (very) limited talk about monks, I was kind of excited pre-book to roll an elemental one. However, looking at the class as a whole, it's very... um... meh. I was hoping for something akin to a ToB Swordsage - and it was like a 4th Ed powers melee guy. Sigh.

Most of the subclasses are underwhelming. I do like Spirit Totem Barbarian - Bear/Bear/Eagle will be amazing. I hate the rage mechanic though, so again, kinda meh. I like that alignment is a guide, but not mandatory... Ranger - omg, what happened to the ranger!?! There's no happiness there - the hunter is bland and the poor beast master gets a downright ****ty pet.

Of the fighters, I actually like Champion the best. Maneuvers are so underpowered, they should be available to everyone... they basically took PFs Combat Maneuvers, made them class (and one feat) specific and crapped all over them. EK is underwhelming - though I guess there are so many gish lovers out there, I'm sure a lot of people are happy to have it core single class.

Rogue is probably my go to melee class.

Of the casters, nothing really stood out. Druid is super weaksauce - and what's with the pic with the tiger? They don't get pets - silly WotC. Clerics could be interesting, but they again stole from PF, made the abilities super weak and called it a day. Bard and Warlock look fun, though warlock is arguably the most complex class in the game. I can see lots of arguments arising from the poorly worded abilities.

Speaking of, it's been mentioned a few times, but it really is super obvious when you have the book - you need to read through it in full a few times to get all the 'choose your own adventure' esque page flipping to build a cohesive character. Once one has system mastery, it'll be fine - but until then, nothing is every explained in one place - you literally have to go through sidebars and page flips to find out what something is.

I never did find out how to generate the DC for the monks Stunning Fist. I know it's a Con save to resist it - but what's the DC? /shrug.

Also, the spell list is annoying - not having the class/level on each spell was just lazy formatting.

Outside of that though, I like the basic game mechanics. I like a unified proficiency table, the bounded accuracy to reign in uber numbers that create character disparity and make balancing encounters a chore. The skill system where you can use time and money to buy more - and more emphasis on roleplay than combat simulation. I can definitely see taking older systems and updating them to this - including classes. Moving abilities around and opening up options. It'll be a fun project. If only I could find players.

obryn

2014-08-19, 11:58 PM

Out of curiosity, what were you hoping for?

Out of curiosity, obryn, are you expecting mechanics to "ignite the fires of your imagination" or fluff, or something else?
To both of you - it's hard to say. I've gotten books before that I've been skeptical about - 4e Neverwinter springs to mind - but on checking them out, I find that they're much, much better than I anticipated. This happens pretty often, really.

Most of my information about 5e has been from (1) various scanned pages, (2) blog posts, and (3) discussion with those who have the PHB. I was thinking those sources might be hopelessly biased, but I'm not finding that to be the case. Stuff like Contagion really is that bad.

I just hope he evetually learns to start liking it, or decides to stop being the cloudy day on the 5e forums lol.
Just because I don't like what I'm seeing much, I am trying to make sure that my criticisms are precise, to the point, and directed to specific gameplay concerns, rather than any kind of edition warring. I'm also discussing the good things about this edition, and to-date, whenever anyone's asked, I've told them to give 5e a try. I will try it myself. If that makes me a "cloudy day" you can feel free to ignore list me, if you like.

SaintRidley

2014-08-20, 12:01 AM

Arrived today. Now, I didn't involve myself in the playtest because no time, so no real expectations.

I like the art. An overview of the classes and I see a lot I can work with to have fun. And the system is designed in a way that works for me - it echoes 3.5 in a pleasing way without being 3.5. And it's not 4e, which I feel just sacrificed everything on the altar of balance.

Not terribly enthralled with the realms, so a bit miffed that it's the default here.

It was nice seeing bits of text from various setting novels in the race descriptions. I got my first taste of R.A. Salvatore's prose through this, and I have to say, based on the selections given, I'm very much turned off the idea of reading anything longer by him than the three sentence snippets we get here.

The Great Wheel is back! And the lower planes back in their rightful place! The Blood War fan in my is pleased.

I'm going to say tentative thumbs up until I get a better idea based on the DMG and the MM. And the Eberron campaign setting so I can get my hands on Warforged and Changelings.

I did notice that the skeleton and zombie stats in the back have Con scores. Looks like nonabilities went away?

obryn

2014-08-20, 12:17 AM

I did notice that the skeleton and zombie stats in the back have Con scores. Looks like nonabilities went away?
Yep. Every stat can see use in play, since each one is its own save. Even otherwise-mindless monsters might need to escape from a Maze spell.

akaddk

2014-08-20, 12:26 AM

Falka

2014-08-20, 01:20 AM

Maybe you should, I dunno, play a session instead? :smallconfused:

Since when people test stuff rigorously before saying it's crap?

Marius

2014-08-20, 09:07 AM

Whut? The elemental monk is bonkers awesome! How on earth can you say it's "meh"? I can understand not liking it but it is anything but "meh".

I don't care for the elemental monk ethier. But I really like the Shadow monk.

5th editions looks fun so far but it's too simple and streamlined for my taste. I don't think there's any way to use modules to change that but I'll wait for the DMG and see what options it has.

Some classes look great (bards, monks), others not so much (fighters, rangers). I don't like that rogues are not the best skillmonkeys in the game anymore.

And talking about skills, they really suck now. They're unreliable and the difference between a non proficiencient character and a proficiencient one is almost meaningless, especially on skills that aren't used often.

It didn't like the way they tried to balance spellcasters. I would've like a skill casting system (like the one in Fantasy craft) and a ToB-like system for non-casters instead of simply giving the casters less spells. But I did like the changes of many of the spells that needed to be toned down.

I'll try to get my table to try it with a one shot soon and we'll see.

Edit: Feats! They're better than before but not as good as they seem in the playtest. Some are almost too god to pass and others are almost as bad as some 3.x feats. There's also just a few feats and barely one or two that fit most concepts.

ImperiousLeader

2014-08-20, 10:23 AM

I never did find out how to generate the DC for the monks Stunning Fist. I know it's a Con save to resist it - but what's the DC? /shrug.

8+proficiency+WIS ... it's in the Ki write-up.

Chaosvii7

2014-08-20, 12:47 PM

Oh no! My evil plot to talk about elfgames and my having of an unacceptable opinion has been uncovered!

If you think I'm trolling or being disruptive, you can feel free to report me or ignore me. I've been trying to be constructive in my criticisms and open to honest discussion, but eh.

You won my undying respect when you intentionally ordered your PHB to spite either Lokiare or Captpike(can't recall which one it was.) Your concerns with the system are things that WotC did pay attention to, but whether or not you think they fixed them is totally your opinion, and that's fine.

I just hope he evetually learns to start liking it, or decides to stop being the cloudy day on the 5e forums lol.

Rude. Obryn is probably one of my favorite contributors to this subforum. He's never been a downer, or anything of the sort.

And to that effect, Obryn doesn't have to learn to like it; Nobody should be forced to like anything. Obryn is probably the most open-minded individuals regarding this edition. Might not love the system, but that doesn't stop him from making fair assessments of the content.

akaddk

2014-08-20, 03:09 PM

I don't care for the elemental monk ethier. But I really like the Shadow monk.
As I said, liking it and saying it's "meh" are two different things. Meh implies that it's boring or uninspiring. The elemental monk is anything but meh.

And talking about skills, they really suck now. They're unreliable and the difference between a non proficiencient character and a proficiencient one is almost meaningless, especially on skills that aren't used often.
Don't know where you're getting that from. My experience has been wholly different.

There's also just a few feats and barely one or two that fit most concepts.
This is my one real gripe. There just aren't enough feats and, more importantly, not enough variety to the feats.

SaintRidley

2014-08-20, 03:54 PM

This is my one real gripe. There just aren't enough feats and, more importantly, not enough variety to the feats.

Perhaps it's intended so that we don't run into a situation where every character will always choose a feat over an ability increase?

BoutsofInsanity

2014-08-20, 04:17 PM

So I got mine a while back from Prerelease stores. Ill give my thoughts.

Loving a lot of the simplification. Advantage and Disadvantage are so easy. As a DM I don't have to come up with a bonus or anything. If they just justify an advantage I can just say they got it.

A lot of the classes look neat and fun to play. The rogue and shadow monk look bonkers. I really like the Warlock too. I think he will be for me the most fun to play.

Digging how the fighter is dangerous and such.

Not digging the lack of cool things for Rangers.

I do like how spell choice matters now and how there are a limited number of spells to cast each day.

People hate on R.A. Salvatore (Don't know why but that's not for this thread) but I think it is awesome that the book includes quotes from other DnD books in the pages. I hope that this continues.

I don't like the limited number of skill choices, I think you should be able to have more proficiency in
skills and you should get more feats.

Luckily, this system seems the easiest to home brew your own things for. If you play with a group of High Optimizing Casters you can easily ramp up the sub paths for classes and all the stuff they do. You think the players should have access to more skills? Give them 2 extra starting proficiency.

You want more feats, make them up. Make your own dad gum Wild Magic Table. I know I will.

All in all I am pleased with the system and look forward to tweaking it as I go. Also, Make up your own Maneuvers. Cause it won't be that hard.

WickerNipple

2014-08-20, 04:21 PM

Perhaps it's intended so that we don't run into a situation where every character will always choose a feat over an ability increase?

If that's the intention it is implemented very poorly indeed. You will choose ability increases only when you run out of the few OP feats that are relevant for your class, and half the feats will be forever ignored.

Cybren

2014-08-20, 04:25 PM

If that's the intention it is implemented very poorly indeed. You will choose ability increases only when you run out of the few OP feats that are relevant for your class, and half the feats will be forever ignored.

Feats are an option to be used at DM discretion, though. They're not the default assumption.

pwykersotz

2014-08-20, 04:30 PM

Feats are an option to be used at DM discretion, though. They're not the default assumption.

Yes, but let's be honest. Most games are going to have feats. And if you're going to include a subsystem, it may as well be balanced within itself.

That said, I'm not seeing anything quite as bad as +3hp or +1 to your attack roll or +2 to two skills, so I'm happy with that.

akaddk

2014-08-20, 04:46 PM

obryn

2014-08-20, 04:52 PM

Yes, but let's be honest. Most games are going to have feats. And if you're going to include a subsystem, it may as well be balanced within itself.
Yeah, I'm a well-known feat-disliker, but if/when I run 5e, it will be with feats. They're too important to both flexibility and specialization.

Removing feats isn't so much a simplification option as an OSR option.

CyberThread

2014-08-20, 05:20 PM

If you want it to mean more lower the point buy at creation. Those stat bumps start looking more delicious

StabbityRabbit

2014-08-20, 05:33 PM

Oh no! My evil plot to talk about elfgames and my having of an unacceptable opinion has been uncovered!

Mind if I sig this?

obryn

2014-08-20, 05:54 PM

Mind if I sig this?
Feel free!

Mr.Moron

2014-08-20, 06:07 PM

I'm liking it far more than I'm disliking it. I like how everything is cohesive, there is far less raw numbers bloat (not that it's entirely lacking...), options are clearly and well presented, non-full casters seem very functional out of the box even if they lag in raw high level power. The dis/advantage system, the prociency bonus system and rest categories make it look like things are going to be much easier to reach improvised solutions I'm happy with as a GM.

I like it. It's certainly any evolution of the 3.X system but that's OK with me. What problems remain from that era are largely issues I've already developed patches for. I mean better a system with no holes, but I've never seen on of those. Better the devil I know, I guess. The rest feels like a big step forward.

I hope as it ages, they find a way to expand without making it feel so bloated the way 3.X does in retrospect.

EDIT: As for the book itself. The art is super hit or miss for me, and more miss than hit (wtf Ms. Researcher). However it feels laid out well, and it's very handsome in a general sense. I love the little sketches in the introduction and status effect sections. Would have liked to have more stuff than that.

Lokiare

2014-08-20, 06:11 PM

OMG! I am so shocked! Shocked I say! Obryn doesn't like 5e? NO WAI! I could never have guessed that from all his previous posts...

Posts like these make me wish there was some kind of upvote system on these boards...

Having a different opinion than yours is not trolling and it isn't bad in any way. In fact it fosters interesting discussions based on the subject at hand. Without it all that would be left is people patting each other on the back and never discussing anything.

I think it looks great, you know why? because it's simpler and more streamlined than 3.5, and not a videogame on a table like 4e.

whatever may be "broken" about it is only really broken if you make it that way or let it be. don't powergame so hard your character sucks the fun out of encounters. If you think your melee class is lacking in places then spruce it up a bit.

in the end the whole game is up to you man. this is just a framework.

It doesn't take power gaming to break 5E. It takes one randomly chosen spell and a tiny bit of inspiration "Wait, I can use true polymorph to permanently change the fighter into a great red dragon? All right!" or "So I can cast animate dead 10x per day? Hmmm... I see an undead army in my future!". Players will be stumbling onto these things left and right and breaking games almost as badly as 3E.

Now to the 4E is a videogame on a table comment. Please, just stop throwing edition war bait out there because it ruins threads when it gets discussed. If you didn't like something specific about 4E then tell us the mechanic you didn't like or just generalize and say you didn't like 4E. There is no need to start edition wars.

I could for instance say that 3E, 1E, and 2E were video games on a table also, but that would just be edition war bait and be about as true as your comment.

I just hope he evetually learns to start liking it, or decides to stop being the cloudy day on the 5e forums lol.

How 1984 of you.

Since when people test stuff rigorously before saying it's crap?

Since we've been playing TTRPGs for 20+ years and have a bachelors in game development. Oh and I did participate in the play test playing at least once in with each packet. Of course, none of that matters right because our opinions aren't valid if we don't like 5E?

I'm finding the choice between a feat and ability bump to be a fairly tough choice. For the most part I feel that having feats earlier on is the best bet whilst bumping a primary stat for the last couple of ability score improvement benefits is the go. That way you get the benefit of the "cool" feat options for a longer time and round off the character with the super-ability that is core to the character.

Its easy to quantify. First determine the average AC of monsters of your level, then determine your hit chance and convert it to a percent. Then find all the feats that grant you advantage and run the math on them to see how much they are worth. Then compare your ability score increase to these numbers. You'll find that unless you need a 20 to hit something or make a save, a feat that grants advantage is always superior to a +1 bonus to an ability score. In some cases gaining advantage on a save or attack is combined with +1 to an ability score, in those cases that feat is nearly a must have.

zephirum

2014-08-21, 12:48 AM

or decides to stop being the cloudy day on the 5e forums lol.
Lokiare clearly already holds that title.

Since we've been playing TTRPGs for 20+ years and have a bachelors in game development. Oh and I did participate in the play test playing at least once in with each packet. Of course, none of that matters right because our opinions aren't valid if we don't like 5E?

its not that it isn't valid. Its that it has no value. Your opinion does not matter. No ones does. You don't like it, sweet, don't play it have fun playing whatever you do play. The community has received your critique, you did post it many many times. Message received and I guess that means your business here is concluded. Goodbye.

oh your just going to stay here and whine and be a general kill joy for people who do like the system. Many liking it for the same mechanics changes that are often cited as being bad. I like small numbers and a small skill gap. I like it when my Barbarian throws his back out on a strength check and the elven archer crits it. It entertains me. I like a loose framework that says do whatever go play instead of realistic simulation rules for everything. I like protecting my squishy wizard so he can gib a dragon 18 levels later.

Its easy to quantify. First determine the average AC of monsters of your level, then determine your hit chance and convert it to a percent. Then find all the feats that grant you advantage and run the math on them to see how much they are worth. Then compare your ability score increase to these numbers. You'll find that unless you need a 20 to hit something or make a save, a feat that grants advantage is always superior to a +1 bonus to an ability score. In some cases gaining advantage on a save or attack is combined with +1 to an ability score, in those cases that feat is nearly a must have.

ooo lets make a list of all the feats that give advantage on an attack.

Mounted combat. - advantage against creatures smaller than your mount. when mounted.
Grappler - advantage to attacks made to a target you have grappled.

wow such a long list of feats that are clearly better that everyone will take and not perks to specific playstyles that are rarely used do to being seen as suboptimal or unavailable most of the time. which if you actually look at the feats is mostly how they work for any given character idea there is one feat that is great and couple that are meh. Most characters are going to want to take that one feat, cap their prime stat(~+4 points) and have 1-2 more increases to do whatever with.
Course this would be a feat system that in no way matches your premise of having advantage giving mechanics all over the place and illustrates a theme I keep seeing with your posts. That what your talking about and whats in the book don't really match up. Forget the playtest, it's not the playtest. things got changed.

It feels more like your being paid by a rival systems company to run a negative word of mouth campaign than giving legitimate concerns. I don't know why someone who dislikes the system as much as you talk about would be here otherwise.

In general I find the span of complaints about 5e to be of the ignorant/hyperbolic/outright lies/true, but universal to any and all systems/doesn't work as advertized/something more people like than hate, varieties.

meh True poly is crazy overpowered, archdruid exploitable, save vs dc progression maybe could have used another tuning pass, and Int doesn't feel tied to any universal mechanic, or enough classes for that matter, warcaster feat being probably mandatory. but that's my complete list of complaints. When compared to the speed usability and versatility of the system as a whole I feel like I'd rather play 5e than 2,3,4,pathfinder, hackmaster, or systems I've read from the non D&D family. It's easier to house rule the handful of things I don't like in 5 where it presents roleplay and description as the general way to do things than 3/4 that tried to have a rule for everything and were all about mechanics.

DontEatRawHagis

2014-08-21, 09:38 AM

I'm finding the choice between a feat and ability bump to be a fairly tough choice. For the most part I feel that having feats earlier on is the best bet whilst bumping a primary stat for the last couple of ability score improvement benefits is the go. That way you get the benefit of the "cool" feat options for a longer time and round off the character with the super-ability that is core to the character.
I don't find it much of a choice. Some Feats like Actor have a built in +1 to ability score, granted it's a specific ability.

Other than that I just use the extra +1 if I have a 17 that I want to be an 18 and don't want to take the equivalent feat.

Marius

2014-08-21, 09:42 AM

Don't know where you're getting that from. My experience has been wholly different.

With numbers so low and a d20 the curve for checks is all over the place. Luck matters a lot. Plus a Fighter trained in Athletics is barely better than a Fighter that is not (at level 1 that's 10% better, at level 20, 30%). And that's intentional, they wanted that everyone could try anything. I get that, but I don't like it. It's not a question of right or wrong but a matter of taste.

DontEatRawHagis

2014-08-21, 09:47 AM

With numbers so low and a d20 the curve for checks is all over the place. Luck matters a lot. Plus a Fighter trained in Athletics is barely better than a Fighter that is not (at level 1 that's 10% better, at level 20, 30%). And that's intentional, they wanted that everyone could try anything. I get that, but I don't like it. It's not a question of right or wrong but a matter of taste.

You could DM rule that you have to be proficient to do something. Such as swim trough white water rapids or something.

Chaosvii7

2014-08-21, 10:07 AM

You could DM rule that you have to be proficient to do something. Such as swim trough white water rapids or something.

That's a tad extreme, but being proficient in a skill should mean that you should have either a greater threshold with which that skill's applications can be brought to, or making the easy stuff auto-success.

A person who is trained in Athletics should either be able to go for a longer period of time down the rapids, or only have to make checks to avoid obstacles. Potentially both.

I think the edition assumes that of DMs, even; That they're willing to give narrative leeway to a few things because it encourages exploration of the possibilities of the storytelling they're trying to accomplish.

Caelic

2014-08-21, 11:09 AM

Setting aside rules for a moment, I will say that I'm not wild about the layout of the book. Look, WotC, RPGs have been around for a long time now, and the idea of presenting a concise walkthrough of chargen, with the relevant rules in the order you need them, is NOT a new idea. Game companies have been doing it for years; I'd say it's industry standard at this point.

So why does the new PHB feel so scattershot?

Lord Il Palazzo

2014-08-21, 11:49 AM

I like most everything I've read so far, but I feel like WotC really dropped the ball on the layout of the Spells section. It's alphabetical so it isn't hard to find a specific spell when you need to, but it's not formatted to be browsed easilly, such as when you're trying to find spells that fit a certain character or build.

In 3.5, the wizard spell list was broken down by school for each level so if (for example) you had a transmuter, you could quickly see what spells were in that school and what spells weren't. With wizard traditions and the Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster caring about the schools of spells, why wasn't that done here? Also, I'd have much preferred if the individual spell descriptions had some sort of class label. When I see an interesting spell, I'd like to know who can cast it without having to go back 30 pages and look through 8 separate spell lists to see whose it is.

While I kind of bristle at the idea of writing in the book, I'm getting more and more tempted every time I go looking for spells.

obryn

2014-08-21, 12:16 PM

I like most everything I've read so far, but I feel like WotC really dropped the ball on the layout of the Spells section. It's alphabetical so it isn't hard to find a specific spell when you need to, but it's not formatted to be browsed easilly, such as when you're trying to find spells that fit a certain character or build.
Yeah. This setup is better mostly for when you need to dig for a spell in a monster stat block (ick).

But for actually building and advancing your character, it's not ideal. Especially when you need to know the spell schools. Fortunately, there should (I hope?) be some game aids out for 5e at some point to help with this. Hopefully free. I'm also still nonplussed about save/attack info being buried in the spell block, but that's a different story.

In other layout news, I've seen folks confused by the layout of the Races section a lot. I know why they did it, separating out Common and Uncommon races, but it's pretty counter-intuitive and it makes new readers believe that WotC just can't alphabetize.

Merlin the Tuna

2014-08-21, 12:38 PM

Marius

2014-08-21, 01:03 PM

You could DM rule that you have to be proficient to do something. Such as swim trough white water rapids or something.

Well, sure. I can houserule a lot but I was hoping I didn't have to do it. Worse, what happens when I'm just a player and I can't change the game?

Demonic Spoon

2014-08-21, 01:08 PM

Well, sure. I can houserule a lot but I was hoping I didn't have to do it. Worse, what happens when I'm just a player and I can't change the game?

There's plenty of precedent ingame for auto-success on things you know how to do - the ranger's various auto-successes for wilderness survival is a perfect example of this. Given that DMs arbitrarily set how difficult a task is by the existing rules, I'd hardly call that a houserule.

Sir_Leorik

2014-08-21, 01:34 PM

Most of my information about 5e has been from (1) various scanned pages, (2) blog posts, and (3) discussion with those who have the PHB. I was thinking those sources might be hopelessly biased, but I'm not finding that to be the case. Stuff like Contagion really is that bad.

Contagion is a 5th level spell that inflicts debuffs. First, it requires a melee spell attack. If the enemy's AC is high enough, or the caster rolls poorly, the spell is wasted. No debuffs for you.

Second, if the target can make three Constitution saving throws before failing three, the debuffs end (otherwise they last a week). Who is going to be the target of this spell? If you target an enemy like a Dragon, who can just automatically pass a saving throw, the target is definitely going to use that ability to improve its odds of succeeding (especially if the caster is a cheese-monkey and always chooses Slimy Doom).

I think Contagion is more of an issue in the hands of NPC casters. The party might win the fight, but their Bard could end up with Flesh Rot, their Wizard with Slimy Doom, or their Fighter with Mindfire. (Also these diseases can be inflicted by other sources than the Contagion spell, though we'll need to see the Monster Manual and DMG to find out.) A party of PCs is interested in killing their enemies. The DM is more interested in making life interesting for his players.

Just because I don't like what I'm seeing much, I am trying to make sure that my criticisms are precise, to the point, and directed to specific gameplay concerns, rather than any kind of edition warring. I'm also discussing the good things about this edition, and to-date, whenever anyone's asked, I've told them to give 5e a try. I will try it myself. If that makes me a "cloudy day" you can feel free to ignore list me, if you like.

I feel that so long as you're providing constructive criticism about 5E, I will definitely welcome your comments. I haven't gone through the book with a fine toothed comb yet, so I welcome anyone who can point out issues with the game that may be broken. For example I hadn't looked at the Contagion spell yet, and now I'm thinking of devious things to do my players when I start running a campaign of my own. :smallwink:

I don't care for the elemental monk ethier. But I really like the Shadow monk.

5th editions looks fun so far but it's too simple and streamlined for my taste. I don't think there's any way to use modules to change that but I'll wait for the DMG and see what options it has.

Some classes look great (bards, monks), others not so much (fighters, rangers). I don't like that rogues are not the best skillmonkeys in the game anymore.

I think the Expertise ability makes up for that. The Warlock I created for D&D Encounters gets skill proficiency in Sleight of Hand, Stealth and tool proficiency in Thieves' Tools from the Urchin Background, but a Rogue with those proficiencies is likely to have a higher Dexterity score and can take Expetise, doubling his Prociency Bonus for any of those Proficiencies. My Warlock, with a Dexterity of 14, has a +4 in her Stealth skill, while a Rogue with a Dexterity of 16 and Expertise in Stealth, would have a +7.

Bards also get Expertise, but they get it two levels later than Rogues and will probably choose Expertise in different skills.

And talking about skills, they really suck now. They're unreliable and the difference between a non proficiencient character and a proficiencient one is almost meaningless, especially on skills that aren't used often.

Here's how I see skills in 5E: Non-Proficient characters with a poor ability score (Modifier of -1 to +1) will be able to accomplish a Very Easy check (usually DC 5) on a somewhat routine basis, but they will struggle with Easy checks (usually DC 10) (let alone Medium Checks (usually DC 15)). A Non-Proficient Character with a good ability score (+2 or higher) will have less difficulty with Easy checks but will struggle with Medium checks (Let alone Hard checks (usually DC 20)). A Proficient character with a poor ability score will probably have little trouble with Easy checks, but will find Medium checks harder because of his low ability score, and will struggle with Hard checks. A trained character with a good ability score will find Easy checks to be, well, easy, Medium checks Medium, and Hard checks Hard. A trained character with a good ability score and Expertise will find Easy checks Very Easy, Medium checks Easy, and find Hard checks Medium. And that's before Advantage and Disadvantage are factored in.

Here's an example: Toren the Dwarf Fighter, Eldrana the Elf Wizard, Sarah the Human Ranger and Lolly the Halfling Rogue, need to sneak past a Gnoll to get into a fortress. Toren has a Dexterity of 8, is wearing Chain Mail, and is not Proficient in Stealth. Eldrana has a Dexterity of 15 and is not proficient in Stealth. Sarah has a Dexterity of 16, is Proficient in Stealth, and this location is not her Favored Terrain. Lolly has a Dexterity of 17, is Proficient in Stealth and has Expertise in Stealth. All of these characters are first level.

The DM determines that the Gnoll's Passive Perception is a 12, so each member of the party needs to roll a 12 or higher to avoid being noticed by the Gnoll. Toren's Stealth modifier is a -1 and he has disadvantage on the roll from wearing heavy armor. Eldrana has a modifier of +2. Since this is not Sarah's Favored Terrain, her Stealth modifier is +5. Lolly's Stealth modifier is +7.

The odds are against Toren making the roll; not only is he not Proficient in Stealth, his armor grants him Disadvantage on the roll. Toren would need to roll a 13 or higher on both of his dice to sneak by. Eldrana has a slightly better chance than Toren; provided she rolls a 10 or higher, she should be able to sneak past the Gnoll. Sarah has a pretty good shot at sneaking by; unless she rolls a 6 or lower, she should evade the Gnoll. Lolly has the best shot of sneaking by; unless he rolls a 4 or lower, he's making it.

That's how Ability checks work in 5E: they reward characters who have high Ability scores, are Proficient in a Skill or Tool, have Expertise and have Advantage, while punishing those who have low Ability scores, are not Proficient and have Disadvantage.

It didn't like the way they tried to balance spellcasters. I would've like a skill casting system (like the one in Fantasy craft) and a ToB-like system for non-casters instead of simply giving the casters less spells. But I did like the changes of many of the spells that needed to be toned down.

Casters get a lot fewer spell slots than they had to work with in 3.X. At low levels, Casters will be more reliant on their Cantrips than they are on using their precious spell slots, especially if they are being harried and don't have a chance for a Short Rest (let alone a long one).

Edit: Feats! They're better than before but not as good as they seem in the playtest. Some are almost too god to pass and others are almost as bad as some 3.x feats. There's also just a few feats and barely one or two that fit most concepts.

Perhaps it's intended so that we don't run into a situation where every character will always choose a feat over an ability increase?

If that's the intention it is implemented very poorly indeed. You will choose ability increases only when you run out of the few OP feats that are relevant for your class, and half the feats will be forever ignored.

Feats are an option to be used at DM discretion, though. They're not the default assumption.

I'm finding the choice between a feat and ability bump to be a fairly tough choice. For the most part I feel that having feats earlier on is the best bet whilst bumping a primary stat for the last couple of ability score improvement benefits is the go. That way you get the benefit of the "cool" feat options for a longer time and round off the character with the super-ability that is core to the character.

Yeah, I'm a well-known feat-disliker, but if/when I run 5e, it will be with feats. They're too important to both flexibility and specialization.

Removing feats isn't so much a simplification option as an OSR option.

The Feat vs. Ability score choice is intended for two reasons. First, Feats are optional in 5E. Second, it creates a choice where the player has to decide whether to make the PC better at what they already do, or to customize the PC in a specific way. Ability score increases cap at 20, and there is another choice that the Player has to make: improve one Ability score by +2, or split it up by +1 between two Ability Scores. If doing the latter, I recommend trying to leave one or more odd Ability Score(s) at first level, so that at 4th level you can improve two and still advance to the next Ability Score Modifier with at least one.

Having a different opinion than yours is not trolling and it isn't bad in any way. In fact it fosters interesting discussions based on the subject at hand. Without it all that would be left is people patting each other on the back and never discussing anything.

Once again, so long as the criticism is constructive, I see no reason for someone to withhold their opinions. Let's keep the discussion civil and not accuse anyone of trolling. (Especially since since doing the latter violates the Forum Rules.)

If Lokiare or obryn, or anyone else, have a critique of 5E, I welcome their posting it in a constructive fashion. Even if they don't convince me the game is broken, they might point out a specific problem that needs correction, or bring to my attention some issue that needs addressing.

It doesn't take power gaming to break 5E. It takes one randomly chosen spell and a tiny bit of inspiration "Wait, I can use true polymorph to permanently change the fighter into a great red dragon? All right!" or "So I can cast animate dead 10x per day? Hmmm... I see an undead army in my future!". Players will be stumbling onto these things left and right and breaking games almost as badly as 3E.

See, these are perfect examples! True Polymorph can become permanent, provided the caster doesn't break their concentration for a full hour. Of course there are ways to break a caster's concentration, and even if the Fighter permanently becomes a dragon, what happens when the party returns to town? I don't think the townsfolk will respond with anything less than abject terror or Pitchforks and TorchesTM. How will the Fighter react to never being able to go to a bar, tavern or inn again? Will he accept it like Peter in Flight of Dragons? Will he decide to eat the caster? There are lots of roleplaying opportunities arising from the party deciding to be a bunch of Munchkins.

Now to the 4E is a videogame on a table comment. Please, just stop throwing edition war bait out there because it ruins threads when it gets discussed. If you didn't like something specific about 4E then tell us the mechanic you didn't like or just generalize and say you didn't like 4E. There is no need to start edition wars.

Agreed. If you have a constructive criticism about 4E (or OD&D, BECMI/RC, 1E, 2E or 3.X) than raise it as a constructive criticism.

Its easy to quantify. First determine the average AC of monsters of your level, then determine your hit chance and convert it to a percent. Then find all the feats that grant you advantage and run the math on them to see how much they are worth. Then compare your ability score increase to these numbers. You'll find that unless you need a 20 to hit something or make a save, a feat that grants advantage is always superior to a +1 bonus to an ability score. In some cases gaining advantage on a save or attack is combined with +1 to an ability score, in those cases that feat is nearly a must have.

On the other hand, a caster will find boosting their casting stat to 20 to be a higher priority than choosing most Feats. That's where the choice starts to become difficult.

ooo lets make a list of all the feats that give advantage on an attack.

Mounted combat. - advantage against creatures smaller than your mount. when mounted.
Grappler - advantage to attacks made to a target you have grappled.

There are also feats that remove Disadvantage. That can be an equally big deal in some situations.

I don't find it much of a choice. Some Feats like Actor have a built in +1 to ability score, granted it's a specific ability.

Other than that I just use the extra +1 if I have a 17 that I want to be an 18 and don't want to take the equivalent feat.

The Ability Bonus is either +2 to one Ability Score or +1 to two Ability Scores.

Sir_Leorik

2014-08-21, 01:38 PM

With numbers so low and a d20 the curve for checks is all over the place. Luck matters a lot. Plus a Fighter trained in Athletics is barely better than a Fighter that is not (at level 1 that's 10% better, at level 20, 30%). And that's intentional, they wanted that everyone could try anything. I get that, but I don't like it. It's not a question of right or wrong but a matter of taste.

At the Encounters game last night, luck played a major role for some players. If you're not proficient in a skill and you keep rolling 5's, you're not going to succeed. And even if you're proficient in a skill, rolling a 1 isn't helpful.

Marius

2014-08-21, 02:06 PM

There's plenty of precedent ingame for auto-success on things you know how to do - the ranger's various auto-successes for wilderness survival is a perfect example of this. Given that DMs arbitrarily set how difficult a task is by the existing rules, I'd hardly call that a houserule.

Auto-successes are usually only allowed when it doesn't matter if you fail. I don't mind some randomness, just not a lot.

I think the Expertise ability makes up for that. The Warlock I created for D&D Encounters gets skill proficiency in Sleight of Hand, Stealth and tool proficiency in Thieves' Tools from the Urchin Background, but a Rogue with those proficiencies is likely to have a higher Dexterity score and can take Expetise, doubling his Prociency Bonus for any of those Proficiencies. My Warlock, with a Dexterity of 14, has a +4 in her Stealth skill, while a Rogue with a Dexterity of 16 and Expertise in Stealth, would have a +7.

Bards also get Expertise, but they get it two levels later than Rogues and will probably choose Expertise in different skills.

But bard can get more skills than the rogue plus many spells that can just overcome them.

That's how Ability checks work in 5E: they reward characters who have high Ability scores, are Proficient in a Skill or Tool, have Expertise and have Advantage, while punishing those who have low Ability scores, are not Proficient and have Disadvantage.

I know how they work, I don't like how they work. The proficiency bonus is too small to really matter (the same goes for the ability mod now that it's capped at +5). Expertise is a class feature so it doesn't count. I'm talking about the basic skill system. Two characters with the same relevant stat will have mostly the same chance of making a roll if they have or don't have proficiency. Plus luck plays a huge rol.

Casters get a lot fewer spell slots than they had to work with in 3.X. At low levels, Casters will be more reliant on their Cantrips than they are on using their precious spell slots, especially if they are being harried and don't have a chance for a Short Rest (let alone a long one).

They also have less known spell (a lot less, half of what a psion got in 3.5). Again, I know that, I just dn't like it. I'd rather balance the game in other ways than to cut options from classes.

Theodoxus

2014-08-21, 02:07 PM

As I said, liking it and saying it's "meh" are two different things. Meh implies that it's boring or uninspiring. The elemental monk is anything but meh.

In my original rant, I noted that I had hoped the elemental monk to be akin to the swordsage. Having spell-like maneuvers that created elemental effects. It's nothing like that - and hence, to me, it is boring and uninspiring. Hence meh.

obryn

2014-08-21, 02:14 PM

I know how they work, I don't like how they work. The proficiency bonus is too small to really matter (the same goes for the ability mod now that it's capped at +5). Expertise is a class feature so it doesn't count. I'm talking about the basic skill system. Two characters with the same relevant stat will have mostly the same chance of making a roll if they have or don't have proficiency. Plus luck plays a huge rol.
This is because they're ability checks, not really skill checks. Someone strong is good at climbing; the proficiency bonus is the cherry on top. You can't be a good climber unless you're strong. Someone charismatic as good at persuading people. You can't be good at persuading people without a good charisma score.

RustyArmor

2014-08-21, 02:29 PM

At the Encounters game last night, luck played a major role for some players. If you're not proficient in a skill and you keep rolling 5's, you're not going to succeed. And even if you're proficient in a skill, rolling a 1 isn't helpful.

Agree with this 100%. When I first saw the lower numbers I was kinda on the fence. I tend to roll bad on dice as does one other person in my group. Two others however, roll supernaturally high. In 3.x I would have +12 or higher in a skill while the two others have +4 or lower and would beat me in said skill more then 80% of the time. So in that regard me with average rolls of 5 to 8 with a +12 mod to them rolling 19-20 and having a +4 is almost the same as me with a +7 mod to them with a +3.

As much as higher numbers would help me, it helps those that skill dump into ridiculous numbers and luckier rolls more so. Like with the two in my group as sample again, at 1-3rd level they would already hit 30 bluff check or 30 knowledge check way to often for it to be considered an "Heroic" difficulty. So all its really doing is putting a smack down on the high rollers rolling WAY to high while not really doing to much to those that roll poorly.

Sir_Leorik

2014-08-21, 02:37 PM

Agree with this 100%. When I first saw the lower numbers I was kinda on the fence. I tend to roll bad on dice as does one other person in my group. Two others however, roll supernaturally high. In 3.x I would have +12 or higher in a skill while the two others have +4 or lower and would beat me in said skill more then 80% of the time. So in that regard me with average rolls of 5 to 8 with a +12 mod to them rolling 19-20 and having a +4 is almost the same as me with a +7 mod to them with a +3.

As much as higher numbers would help me, it helps those that skill dump into ridiculous numbers and luckier rolls more so. Like with the two in my group as sample again, at 1-3rd level they would already hit 30 bluff check or 30 knowledge check way to often for it to be considered an "Heroic" difficulty. So all its really doing is putting a smack down on the high rollers rolling WAY to high while not really doing to much to those that roll poorly.

The good news is that Ability Check DCs in 5E are much lower than Skill Check DCs were in 3.X (or even 4E). Rolling poorly hurts a non-proficient PC with a low Ability Score more than it does a Proficient PC with a high Ability Score. Add in Expertise and Advantage, and certain PCs will pass certain Ability Checks more frequently than others.

Cibulan

2014-08-21, 02:44 PM

Agree with this 100%. When I first saw the lower numbers I was kinda on the fence. I tend to roll bad on dice as does one other person in my group. Two others however, roll supernaturally high. In 3.x I would have +12 or higher in a skill while the two others have +4 or lower and would beat me in said skill more then 80% of the time. So in that regard me with average rolls of 5 to 8 with a +12 mod to them rolling 19-20 and having a +4 is almost the same as me with a +7 mod to them with a +3.

As much as higher numbers would help me, it helps those that skill dump into ridiculous numbers and luckier rolls more so. Like with the two in my group as sample again, at 1-3rd level they would already hit 30 bluff check or 30 knowledge check way to often for it to be considered an "Heroic" difficulty. So all its really doing is putting a smack down on the high rollers rolling WAY to high while not really doing to much to those that roll poorly.The optional proficiency dice mechanic in the DMG might help with a lot of this criticism. I don't know the specifics (cuz it isn't out yet) but it has the potential.

Marius

2014-08-21, 02:47 PM

This is because they're ability checks, not really skill checks. Someone strong is good at climbing; the proficiency bonus is the cherry on top. You can't be a good climber unless you're strong. Someone charismatic as good at persuading people. You can't be good at persuading people without a good charisma score.

That one of my problems with the current system. It doesn't matter if you're strong or smart, you shouldn't be able to do thing almost as good as people trained to do it.

Cibulan

2014-08-21, 03:17 PM

That one of my problems with the current system. It doesn't matter if you're strong or smart, you shouldn't be able to do thing almost as good as people trained to do it.
There's basically three types of people in regards to skills:

(A)-The naturally gifted by untrained (high ability but no proficiency)
(B)-The naturally un-gifted by highly trained (low ability but proficiency)
(C)-The naturally gifted and highly trained (high ability and proficiency)

Why shouldn't A and B relatively equal as sometimes a novice savant can overcome an expert? As long as C is better than A or B, it seems to work fine.

Theodoxus

2014-08-21, 03:36 PM

There's basically three types of people in regards to skills:

(A)-The naturally gifted by untrained (high ability but no proficiency)
(B)-The naturally un-gifted by highly trained (low ability but proficiency)
(C)-The naturally gifted and highly trained (high ability and proficiency)

Why shouldn't A and B relatively equal as sometimes a novice savant can overcome an expert? As long as C is better than A or B, it seems to work fine.

This would be true if we used 3d6 rather than d20 for checks. 3d6 gives a nice bell curve and you know proportionally, that the 8-12 range will be the greatest range - DCs between 10 and 15 will be easier to hit, with 20+ becoming increasingly difficult. Your C's will hit 20+ more often because they'll have 5-6 points at 1st level on average. As & Bs not as often, but statistically, they'd be even.

However, with a d20, there isn't a bell curve - DCs are fairly arbitrary and the minor boost that a C has over an A or B is statistically insignificant. You have as much chance rolling sub 5 every time you roll.

A 3d6 system would solve a lot of issues...

Cibulan

2014-08-21, 03:55 PM

This would be true if we used 3d6 rather than d20 for checks. 3d6 gives a nice bell curve and you know proportionally, that the 8-12 range will be the greatest range - DCs between 10 and 15 will be easier to hit, with 20+ becoming increasingly difficult. Your C's will hit 20+ more often because they'll have 5-6 points at 1st level on average. As & Bs not as often, but statistically, they'd be even.

However, with a d20, there isn't a bell curve - DCs are fairly arbitrary and the minor boost that a C has over an A or B is statistically insignificant. You have as much chance rolling sub 5 every time you roll.

A 3d6 system would solve a lot of issues...I have no problem with changing it to 3d6. I've already made initiative run off 1d10 in my 5th edition game. Some may say that's house ruling the problem away but I think it's inline with 5th's modularity design.

But also I do not have as much of an objection as some do to the fact that "experts" will fail more often with the d20. I don't mind the large luck factor.

obryn

2014-08-21, 04:03 PM

Extended checks take the bite off the RNG spread, too.

I'll be honest, though, I think it's perfectly adequate for the kind of game D&D usually is. Just make sure the DCs are reasonable.

Caelic

2014-08-21, 04:22 PM

I have no problem with changing it to 3d6. I've already made initiative run off 1d10 in my 5th edition game. Some may say that's house ruling the problem away but I think it's inline with 5th's modularity design.

People often seem to use "houseruling" as a dirty word, but let's keep in mind that most of the standard conventions of the game started out as "house rules." Critical hits? House rule. Fumbles? House rule. Max hit points at first level? House rule.

Heck, D&D itself was a set of house rules conceived as an add-on to an existing game!

Anyone who isn't house ruling the game in one way or another isn't trying very hard, IMO. :smallsmile:

DontEatRawHagis

2014-08-21, 04:25 PM

Well, sure. I can houserule a lot but I was hoping I didn't have to do it. Worse, what happens when I'm just a player and I can't change the game?
There has been precedent for skills that's only people who where trained could do.

Demonic Spoon

2014-08-21, 04:32 PM

I agree that houserules should be applied as liberally as makes sense for the group. However, the core rules should try to be the best that they can be even if easy houserules are available. For one thing, houserules mean that DMs need to keep a separate document of all the houserules they use, which is another thing players need to reference when building their characters.

One idea if you want some randomness but not as much is to lower the DC of the task by a bit and confer disadvantage to someone attempting the task without proficiency (or, the opposite, give proficient people advantage)

Cibulan

2014-08-21, 04:45 PM

One idea if you want some randomness but not as much is to lower the DC of the task by a bit and confer disadvantage to someone attempting the task without proficiency (or, the opposite, give proficient people advantage)Some of the existing feats are set up to give advantage to certain skills for specialists. I think that's their intent. So you could add another category of user, one with natural talent (ability), training (proficiency), and specialization (feat).

pwykersotz

2014-08-21, 05:48 PM

Really disappointed to see so much slag getting tossed at obryn; he's without a doubt my MVP for forum members here. There are Debbie Downers around (myself included, though I tend to mostly lurk as a result), but his discussion is always courteous and thoughtful. High-five, obryn.

Wanted to pick at this thread a little bit. I'm probably putting words in your mouth, but this reads to me like you're suggesting that the premise of mechanics themselves being exciting is silly. Is that correct? I'd like to make sure I'm not tilting at windmills before beginning my lunatic ramblings.

Heh, definitely not. I get excited about mechanics all the time. 5e has a lot of them that I love. No, I was trying to get a feel for obryn's perspective so that I could bring up a few of my favorite mechanics or fluff pieces and see how he rates them. After all, liking something is great and all, but you can only truly appreciate it when you've seen all its angles. Obryn is one of my favorite dissenters at the moment because he has a sense of humor and thinks critically about his points.

Falka

2014-08-21, 05:49 PM

PHB is so pwettyyyy! Mine came with a scratch, though.

The illustrations are beautiful. It's worth every penny. Can't say that from many handbooks that I've purchased.

Lokiare

2014-08-21, 09:01 PM

Lokiare clearly already holds that title.

Yes, let's mudsling Lokiare, otherwise people might read what he posts and then change their minds and we can't have that happening.

its not that it isn't valid. Its that it has no value. Your opinion does not matter. No ones does. You don't like it, sweet, don't play it have fun playing whatever you do play. The community has received your critique, you did post it many many times. Message received and I guess that means your business here is concluded. Goodbye.

I'll leave when the DMG comes out and fails to address the issues I have with 5E. Also, before you start shouting 'pessimist' or whatever, I'm basing my prediction of the DMG on the various articles, interviews, and previews that WotC has shown us. There is no reason to hope for the unreasonable. My views aren't pessimistic, they are 'realistic' and based on past evidence.

When people ask me if the glass is half full or half empty, I tell them "its at the mid point between empty and full" and then I go on to ask why they are showing me a glass of water and wasting my time.

oh your just going to stay here and whine and be a general kill joy for people who do like the system. Many liking it for the same mechanics changes that are often cited as being bad. I like small numbers and a small skill gap. I like it when my Barbarian throws his back out on a strength check and the elven archer crits it. It entertains me. I like a loose framework that says do whatever go play instead of realistic simulation rules for everything. I like protecting my squishy wizard so he can gib a dragon 18 levels later.

And that's fine for your play style, but unfortunately WotC keeps telling me 5E will allow my play style too, but when I look at the rules I'm left with the impression WotC is intentionally lying or that they are unable to understand the difference between play styles.

ooo lets make a list of all the feats that give advantage on an attack.

Mounted combat. - advantage against creatures smaller than your mount. when mounted.
Grappler - advantage to attacks made to a target you have grappled.

You missed the one that gives advantage on concentration checks for casters. That one is nearly a melee caster feat tax.

wow such a long list of feats that are clearly better that everyone will take and not perks to specific playstyles that are rarely used do to being seen as suboptimal or unavailable most of the time. which if you actually look at the feats is mostly how they work for any given character idea there is one feat that is great and couple that are meh. Most characters are going to want to take that one feat, cap their prime stat(~+4 points) and have 1-2 more increases to do whatever with.
Course this would be a feat system that in no way matches your premise of having advantage giving mechanics all over the place and illustrates a theme I keep seeing with your posts. That what your talking about and whats in the book don't really match up. Forget the playtest, it's not the playtest. things got changed.

I'm talking about what I'm looking at in the Basic rules and what people have said is in the PHB. I don't own or have access to the PHB yet. So I can't say for sure, but I do know that there are many more things that give advantage and disadvantage than you are letting on, whether its feats you aren't mentioning, racial traits, class features, or whatever. Advantage and Disadvantage get handed out like candy at Halloween.

It feels more like your being paid by a rival systems company to run a negative word of mouth campaign than giving legitimate concerns. I don't know why someone who dislikes the system as much as you talk about would be here otherwise.

I wish, then I would have an income and could by the PHB to analyze it. As it is what little money I get I spend on bills.

In general I find the span of complaints about 5e to be of the ignorant/hyperbolic/outright lies/true, but universal to any and all systems/doesn't work as advertized/something more people like than hate, varieties.

You missed the one's that are 5E failing to reach its goals such as allowing for all play styles.

meh True poly is crazy overpowered, archdruid exploitable, save vs dc progression maybe could have used another tuning pass, and Int doesn't feel tied to any universal mechanic, or enough classes for that matter, warcaster feat being probably mandatory. but that's my complete list of complaints. When compared to the speed usability and versatility of the system as a whole I feel like I'd rather play 5e than 2,3,4,pathfinder, hackmaster, or systems I've read from the non D&D family. It's easier to house rule the handful of things I don't like in 5 where it presents roleplay and description as the general way to do things than 3/4 that tried to have a rule for everything and were all about mechanics.

Unfortunately for others its much more difficult to house rule out the stuff we don't like because we like balanced classes that contribute equally but in different ways, which means we have to redesign all the classes keeping an eye on the math. That's something you don't house rule on a whim.

Agree with this 100%. When I first saw the lower numbers I was kinda on the fence. I tend to roll bad on dice as does one other person in my group. Two others however, roll supernaturally high. In 3.x I would have +12 or higher in a skill while the two others have +4 or lower and would beat me in said skill more then 80% of the time. So in that regard me with average rolls of 5 to 8 with a +12 mod to them rolling 19-20 and having a +4 is almost the same as me with a +7 mod to them with a +3.

Strangely enough there is a precedent for luck being affected by human consciousness: http://www.damninteresting.com/random-event-generators-predict-the-future/

As much as higher numbers would help me, it helps those that skill dump into ridiculous numbers and luckier rolls more so. Like with the two in my group as sample again, at 1-3rd level they would already hit 30 bluff check or 30 knowledge check way to often for it to be considered an "Heroic" difficulty. So all its really doing is putting a smack down on the high rollers rolling WAY to high while not really doing to much to those that roll poorly.

Yes. I advocate a game where the players choices matter more than the dice which means having a total bonus of +21 or more by at least mid way through the game should be achievable if the right resources are put into it.

People often seem to use "houseruling" as a dirty word, but let's keep in mind that most of the standard conventions of the game started out as "house rules." Critical hits? House rule. Fumbles? House rule. Max hit points at first level? House rule.

Heck, D&D itself was a set of house rules conceived as an add-on to an existing game!

Anyone who isn't house ruling the game in one way or another isn't trying very hard, IMO. :smallsmile:

The thing about house ruling is that its fine at each individual table, but when you do it you are messing with the games built in balance.

Not only that, the house rule is individual to your table and discussing it doesn't really add anything to the discussion of 5E for the larger whole.

We are all basing our games off of the same base rules that are in the 5E books and PDFs. Deviation from that means that our discussions lose widespread relevance.

Marius

2014-08-22, 06:51 AM

People often seem to use "houseruling" as a dirty word, but let's keep in mind that most of the standard conventions of the game started out as "house rules." Critical hits? House rule. Fumbles? House rule. Max hit points at first level? House rule.

Heck, D&D itself was a set of house rules conceived as an add-on to an existing game!

Anyone who isn't house ruling the game in one way or another isn't trying very hard, IMO. :smallsmile:

Don't get me wrong, I house-rule almost every game I get my hands on. But I can't review the game for what I can make it, I review it for what it is. Otherwise I can just say that it doesn't matter that 3.x is unbalanced because I can just houserule away everything that I think causes the imbalance.

Stubbazubba

2014-08-22, 10:05 AM

People often seem to use "houseruling" as a dirty word, but let's keep in mind that most of the standard conventions of the game started out as "house rules." Critical hits? House rule. Fumbles? House rule. Max hit points at first level? House rule.

Heck, D&D itself was a set of house rules conceived as an add-on to an existing game!

Anyone who isn't house ruling the game in one way or another isn't trying very hard, IMO. :smallsmile:

If house rules are supposed to be the answer for anything imperfect, what's the new edition for?

pwykersotz

2014-08-22, 10:37 AM

If house rules are supposed to be the answer for anything imperfect, what's the new edition for?

Say you have an old house. You're needs for a living space have changed. Over time you've turned the garage into a rec-room and put an island in your kitchen. But it's not enough. True, you could tear down your existing house and rebuild, or you can sell and buy a new place that's closer to your dream. Sure there's a wall that needs to come out between two bedrooms, and the electrical needs work, but other than that, it's exactly what you want. Those who are truly dedicated might rebuild, and many do. There are some marvelous (and also some terrible) custom houses out there. But most people don't have the time or inclination to put forth that much effort.

Falka

2014-08-22, 10:51 AM

If house rules are supposed to be the answer for anything imperfect, what's the new edition for?

Yeah, isn't that the oh-so-famous Oberoni fallacy?

hawklost

2014-08-22, 11:16 AM

If house rules are supposed to be the answer for anything imperfect, what's the new edition for?

Well, why do you buy a new computer (Or build from scratch) instead of just taking all the parts that are old and replacing them?

Why do you buy a new car instead of just getting all the things you don't like replaced with what you do?

Because the investment is easier. A new edition has things you might like better than an older edition, therefore you might go to that, it doesn't mean that the game is perfect though. I can promise you, based on your responses to the forums that your perfect game and my perfect game do not match, so who should WotC make the game for?

House ruling allows you to customize something to what you like and how you like it. An old edition might require extensive house rules to get to what you like while a new edition might require a lot less. Think about it, lets say that you love 3.5 for everything but about .1% of the rules. Now, why should you go to 3.5 instead of staying in 2e? Because the amount of effort needed to make 3.5 great for you is far less than the amount of effort needed to make the 2e game the same. Perfect reason to get the new edition. Now if 3.5 was more effort to get what you wanted than 2e than you would be a fool to jump to 3.5.

pwykersotz

2014-08-22, 11:17 AM

Yeah, isn't that the oh-so-famous Oberoni fallacy?

No, the Oberoni fallacy only exists if someone is saying that the problem doesn't exist because it can be Rule 0'd. Houserules in general are not this, nor is the assertion that houserules make the game more fun or that the game evolves due to long-term houserules.

Falka

2014-08-22, 12:12 PM

No, the Oberoni fallacy only exists if someone is saying that the problem doesn't exist because it can be Rule 0'd. Houserules in general are not this, nor is the assertion that houserules make the game more fun or that the game evolves due to long-term houserules.

And isn't it the same thing to say that a ruleset is completely fine because you can houserule it? It's the very same logical fallacy.

obryn

2014-08-22, 12:18 PM

And isn't it the same thing to say that a ruleset is completely fine because you can houserule it? It's the very same logical fallacy.
Uhhhmmm.... not quite.

The fallacy takes the nature of, "X isn't broken; you fix it this way!" Which acknowledges X is broken while handwaving the criticism and saying it's invalid. It's pretty specific. So if you say, "Wizards in 3e aren't broken; you just need to stop giving them new spells per level, take away Scribe Scroll, and only allow them to take every other level in a spellcasting class!", that's the fallacy. Saying, "I prefer a lower-magic game, so we did [all the stuff above]" isn't, because you're not making a claim about the rules being fine or flawed, only seasoning them to taste.

Creating your own content, modifying some rules to taste, incorporating modular options, and so on aren't done because anything is actually broken or non-functional; they're just twisting the game more to your taste. I love putting Sriracha on my pizza, but I'm not doing it because the Pizza was incomplete or inedible without it. Though it totally is. Sriracha + pizza = amazing, and I can't live without. Sriracha + mac & cheese = even more amazing.

SiuiS

2014-08-22, 01:26 PM

OMG! I am so shocked! Shocked I say! Obryn doesn't like 5e? NO WAI! I could never have guessed that from all his previous posts...

Huh? Have you actually met Obryn?

You are never going to be convinced that 5e is good because in your mind, it can't be. You made your decision long before you had the PHB and therefore all you are attempting to do is cause arguments and fights on the boards it seems.

Pffffhahahahahahahahaha!

Yeah. Watching a product move from hopeful to mediocre to well-polished mediocre is totally just 'in his mind, it can't be'. There's no rhyme or reason to it, it's not a rational procedure that generates the disappointment and he certainly hasn't given it a fair shake every step of the way hoping maybe his gut feelig was wrong.

You're a hoot~

https://i.imgur.com/kybpTFI.jpg

Blurry screencap?

A dozen or so.

You've played roughly twelve complete games since the PHB's physical publication recently? Wow. [i]Did you even chew your food?[/s]Did you even go through actual arcs, or?

Kurald Galain

2014-08-22, 02:34 PM

That one of my problems with the current system. It doesn't matter if you're strong or smart, you shouldn't be able to do thing almost as good as people trained to do it.

Yes. If I end up running 5E at some point, I will definitely make some houserules for the skill system.

...but pretty much every DM I know uses houserules, regardless of system, so I don't think that "I would use houserules" is a downside of anything.

Why shouldn't A and B relatively equal as sometimes a novice savant can overcome an expert? As long as C is better than A or B, it seems to work fine.

The issue isn't so much that A equals B (although this really isn't the case in most fictional settings, nor in real life), but that A or B isn't noticeably better than an untrained and untalented average guy.

Cibulan

2014-08-22, 02:51 PM

The issue isn't so much that A equals B (although this really isn't the case in most fictional settings, nor in real life), but that A or B isn't noticeably better than an untrained and untalented average guy.That's a matter of taste though; just how reliably better should they be? I mean it is clear that mathematically A or B are better than average guy but by how much of a margin is taste. I don't think you'll ever satisfy everyone on that margin.

Cibulan

2014-08-22, 02:59 PM

Merlin the Tuna

2014-08-22, 03:24 PM

That's a matter of taste though; just how reliably better should they be? I mean it is clear that mathematically A or B are better than average guy but by how much of a margin is taste. I don't think you'll ever satisfy everyone on that margin.It's a tough issue, for sure. Part of the difficulty is that skills are not created equal, and actually hitting some measure of balance while working within the D20 framework is just not easy. Some of that is because there can be severe consequences - a la "Make an Athletics check to jump the chasm, or you die" - and some of that is because certain checks just don't come up very often. History or Animal Handling are great examples there. When will those matter: once every session? Every four sessions? It's rare enough that a lot of it ends up falling on the die, so my Animal Handling expert could conceivably fail every chance while Pliny Petpuncher nails all 3 his character ever takes.

hawklost

2014-08-22, 03:24 PM

My first thought to the skill "problem" was let everyone have half proficiency bonus to untrained skills but that steps on the Bard's toes. Then I thought about doubling proficiency bonus but that steps on the Rogue's/Bard's toes again... What would people think of doubling ability modifiers + proficiency bonus? A level 20, 20 dex rogue would rock a +22 (10 dex + 12 proficiency) to stealth for example. That allows everyone to be better and Rogues/Bards to be even better.

Wouldn't it be easier to roll 2d10 or 3d6 to handle the more 'unskilled' people not having so wide of a chance of being good?

2d10 gives you a much higher chance of getting around an 11 instead of lower or higher numbers
3d6 removes 1,2,19,20 from your rolls but gives you even more weight towards the middle.

Neither or those rolling styles require you to mess with the Proficiency System, which I see as being precariously balanced already. It doesn't require the DCs to be competely revamped but it does give those with more bonus to a skill a higher chance of succeeding on harder DCs from someone with no skill.

obryn

2014-08-22, 03:33 PM

It's a tough issue, for sure. Part of the difficulty is that skills are not created equal, and actually hitting some measure of balance while working within the D20 framework is just not easy. Some of that is because there can be severe consequences - a la "Make an Athletics check to jump the chasm, or you die" - and some of that is because certain checks just don't come up very often. History or Animal Handling are great examples there. When will those matter: once every session? Every four sessions? It's rare enough that a lot of it ends up falling on the die, so my Animal Handling expert could conceivably fail every chance while Pliny Petpuncher nails all 3 his character ever takes.
I am so glad 13A-style Backgrounds are making their way to 5e in the DMG. Arguably, 5e will handle them even better, since there's one proficiency bonus and thus no point on throwing all your points in a generalized one.

Wouldn't it be easier to roll 2d10 or 3d6 to handle the more 'unskilled' people not having so wide of a chance of being good?

2d10 gives you a much higher chance of getting around an 11 instead of lower or higher numbers
3d6 removes 1,2,19,20 from your rolls but gives you even more weight towards the middle.

Neither or those rolling styles require you to mess with the Proficiency System, which I see as being precariously balanced already. It doesn't require the DCs to be competely revamped but it does give those with more bonus to a skill a higher chance of succeeding on harder DCs from someone with no skill.
Yep, 2d10 and 3d6 both work just fine. Or use more extended checks that can't be resolved with a single roll.

Kurald Galain

2014-08-22, 06:42 PM

That's a matter of taste though; just how reliably better should they be?

Yes, I'm well aware that this is a matter of taste. WOTC is deliberately taking a risk here: in virtually every roleplaying game ever, your character can right from the beginning be competent in some task to the level that you can reliably do something that average people can't. In 5E, this will happen around level 9 if you're a rogue, and will not even happen at level 20 otherwise. This is certainly one way in which 5E is distinguishing itself from other games, so I'm assuming WOTC is doing this on purpose (yes, I've seen some people claim that WOTC is utterly incompetent but I don't buy that; I think they're fairly good at what they do). We'll just have to see how many people like this, don't mind this, and hate this.

akaddk

2014-08-22, 07:01 PM

You've played roughly twelve complete games since the PHB's physical publication recently? Wow. [i]Did you even chew your food?[/s]Did you even go through actual arcs, or?

Oh look, someone on the internet is making outrageously extreme claims in order to support their bias and denigrate someone instead of attacking their argument.

Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee ee!

Surrealistik

2014-08-22, 07:05 PM

I got my 5e PHB, and it has so far failed to ignite the fires of my imagination or convince me it's anything other than a slightly less-broken 3e. I will say that the Bard looks - somehow - even more broken than I had anticipated. Which is a surprise, at least. (Hi, I am Bard. At 10th level, I will steal your Ranger/Paladin-exclusive 5th level capstone-ability spells.)

I told you so. :smalltongue:

pwykersotz

2014-08-22, 07:32 PM

Yes, I'm well aware that this is a matter of taste. WOTC is deliberately taking a risk here: in virtually every roleplaying game ever, your character can right from the beginning be competent in some task to the level that you can reliably do something that average people can't. In 5E, this will happen around level 9 if you're a rogue, and will not even happen at level 20 otherwise. This is certainly one way in which 5E is distinguishing itself from other games, so I'm assuming WOTC is doing this on purpose (yes, I've seen some people claim that WOTC is utterly incompetent but I don't buy that; I think they're fairly good at what they do). We'll just have to see how many people like this, don't mind this, and hate this.

Assuming you are correct and that the skill system (which I'm still skeptical about myself) is designed to illustrate commoner-epic and distinguishes that scale poorly, I still think it's worth it. Skills were my least favorite part of 3.5. Anything is an improvement to me. I'll take it, run with it, and see how it goes. So far it hasn't been a problem with levels 1-3 in Lost Mines, but I'll keep my eyes open.

That being said, I think this skill system is a gamist construct designed to let adventurers do things, not a scale from Dirt Farmer to Epic Hero. But maybe that's me.

Kurald Galain

2014-08-22, 07:55 PM

Assuming you are correct and that the skill system (which I'm still skeptical about myself) is designed to illustrate commoner-epic
I didn't say it is that...

That being said, I think this skill system is a gamist construct designed to let adventurers do things
...but it certainly isn't that. The system, by design, doesn't allow adventurers to reliably complete an average-difficulty task. So it's not designed to let adventures do things, but to let adventurers randomly fail at things (except in case of DM fiat, of course).

hawklost

2014-08-22, 08:11 PM

I didn't say it is that...

...but it certainly isn't that. The system, by design, doesn't allow adventurers to reliably complete an average-difficulty task. So it's not designed to let adventures do things, but to let adventurers randomly fail at things (except in case of DM fiat, of course).

I think you fail to notice something. The "Average-difficult" tasks are not done when you just want to do it. Want to jump 10 ft? Sure, do it. Want to climb that rope ladder? Done. Want to scale that abandoned but perfectly serviceable castle wall for fun? Go ahead, you have done it! Now, you want to jump over a pit with Snapping dragon hatchlings while carrying that 50 lb of raw meat? I am going to have to ask you for a DC check. Want to climb up the slick wall fast? Yea, gonna need you to roll for that.

Adventurers only fail when there is a chance and consequence to of failure. If one of those two criteria are missing, there was no point in having the PC roll anything, he either auto succeeds or auto fails depending.

Caelic

2014-08-22, 08:29 PM

I think you fail to notice something. The "Average-difficult" tasks are not done when you just want to do it. Want to jump 10 ft? Sure, do it. Want to climb that rope ladder? Done. Want to scale that abandoned but perfectly serviceable castle wall for fun? Go ahead, you have done it! Now, you want to jump over a pit with Snapping dragon hatchlings while carrying that 50 lb of raw meat? I am going to have to ask you for a DC check. Want to climb up the slick wall fast? Yea, gonna need you to roll for that.

Adventurers only fail when there is a chance and consequence to of failure. If one of those two criteria are missing, there was no point in having the PC roll anything, he either auto succeeds or auto fails depending.

I think this is a very important point. "Medium difficulty" doesn't mean commonplace things that everyone does every day; they're firmly in the middle of the spectrum of difficulty. If everyone can reliably complete a medium difficulty task all of the time, the entire first half of the difficulty spectrum is meaningless.

That said, it would REALLY have been a good idea for WotC to include some examples of tasks at each level of difficulty to establish a norm.

hawklost

2014-08-22, 08:58 PM

Oh I definitely do not dispute that them putting examples of a DC would have been great.

I also could have loved them to put examples of the Stats too. I loves the way Scion RPG did it, with an example of low, med and high stat and skill.

golentan

2014-08-22, 11:53 PM

I just bought mine 2 hours ago, and I have to say, I'm pleased. It may not be the best thing ever, but it rekindles my interest in DnD which was lost with 4e (As a note, I was excited about 4th right up until I started my read through of the core set: I was thrilled while I was unwrapping them). I've got dozens of character ideas based on what's available, and will keep an ear to the ground for a game I can test them in, and having done a dry run for character creation I don't feel either flooded with needless amounts of options or deprived of opportunities to customize to fit my concept. 4/5 stars.

Falka

2014-08-23, 04:09 AM

Wouldn't it be easier to roll 2d10 or 3d6 to handle the more 'unskilled' people not having so wide of a chance of being good?

2d10 gives you a much higher chance of getting around an 11 instead of lower or higher numbers
3d6 removes 1,2,19,20 from your rolls but gives you even more weight towards the middle.

Neither or those rolling styles require you to mess with the Proficiency System, which I see as being precariously balanced already. It doesn't require the DCs to be competely revamped but it does give those with more bonus to a skill a higher chance of succeeding on harder DCs from someone with no skill.

You -do- know that there is absolutely no skilled involved in dice throwing, right? That's just superstition.

Cibulan

2014-08-23, 10:02 AM

Wouldn't it be easier to roll 2d10 or 3d6 to handle the more 'unskilled' people not having so wide of a chance of being good?

2d10 gives you a much higher chance of getting around an 11 instead of lower or higher numbers
3d6 removes 1,2,19,20 from your rolls but gives you even more weight towards the middle.

Neither or those rolling styles require you to mess with the Proficiency System, which I see as being precariously balanced already. It doesn't require the DCs to be competely revamped but it does give those with more bonus to a skill a higher chance of succeeding on harder DCs from someone with no skill.Changing the die type is one approach but I think it's worthwhile to come up with a d20 solution as well since the default paradigm is "one check to rule them all".

Caelic

2014-08-23, 10:03 AM

You -do- know that there is absolutely no skilled involved in dice throwing, right? That's just superstition.

Well, there is a skill that will allow you to influence die rolls, but it's generally called "cheating."

Marius

2014-08-23, 12:36 PM

I think you fail to notice something. The "Average-difficult" tasks are not done when you just want to do it. Want to jump 10 ft? Sure, do it. Want to climb that rope ladder? Done. Want to scale that abandoned but perfectly serviceable castle wall for fun? Go ahead, you have done it! Now, you want to jump over a pit with Snapping dragon hatchlings while carrying that 50 lb of raw meat? I am going to have to ask you for a DC check. Want to climb up the slick wall fast? Yea, gonna need you to roll for that.

Adventurers only fail when there is a chance and consequence to of failure. If one of those two criteria are missing, there was no point in having the PC roll anything, he either auto succeeds or auto fails depending.

A medium difficulty check is dc15, my level 4 rogue would fail it 55% of the time and that's with expertise. That sucks for me, he should be GREAT and unskilled people should suck and only have a really, really low chance of success.

Cibulan

2014-08-23, 01:28 PM

A medium difficulty check is dc15, my level 4 rogue would fail it 55% of the time and that's with expertise. That sucks for me, he should be GREAT and unskilled people should suck and only have a really, really low chance of success.That margin of failure seems appropriate to me but in my continuing quest for a house rule for this, how about skill = ability mod + proficiency + 1/2 character level?

Your level 4 rogue would fail DC 15 45% of the time. Does that smooth the curve enough?

Chaosvii7

2014-08-23, 01:44 PM

Frankly, I'd just let anybody who's proficient with a skill be able to take 10 with that skill when they're not in combat. It's a fair measure of skill - that somebody is trained to the point of being able to think clearly and pragmatically before they climb a 30 foot tall tree sounds sensible to me, especially if it's within the DC. The not in combat thing makes it so that if they want some sort of cool narrative way of gaining advantage, that they still have to make the check.

Falka

2014-08-23, 06:02 PM

A medium difficulty check is dc15, my level 4 rogue would fail it 55% of the time and that's with expertise. That sucks for me, he should be GREAT and unskilled people should suck and only have a really, really low chance of success.

Biased example. You don't roll Stealth vs "medium DC", you roll against Passive Perception usually. Most low level monsters have average PP of 10-13, so that's the actual DC.

Level 4 Rogue can have +7, so he'd actually only need to roll at least a 3 to 6 in average (that's about a 85-75% success rate).

There is no need to houserule what's not broken, people are just overreacting. And probably setting DCs way too high.

Marius

2014-08-23, 07:28 PM

That margin of failure seems appropriate to me but in my continuing quest for a house rule for this, how about skill = ability mod + proficiency + 1/2 character level?

Your level 4 rogue would fail DC 15 45% of the time. Does that smooth the curve enough?

I don't like because:

A) it would make everybody better, no just proficient characters and
B) I want, at least, an 80% chance for a level 1 rogue to pass a medium check. He should be really good at what he does.

Biased example. You don't roll Stealth vs "medium DC", you roll against Passive Perception usually. Most low level monsters have average PP of 10-13, so that's the actual DC.

Level 4 Rogue can have +7, so he'd actually only need to roll at least a 3 to 6 in average (that's about a 85-75% success rate).

There is no need to houserule what's not broken, people are just overreacting. And probably setting DCs way too high.

No it's not. I never said "Stealth" change that for Thieves Tools and set a Medium DC for a trap or a Lock.

Also, I never said that the System is broken, just that I don't like that everyone sucks. And my example BTW is using a Rogue! Imagine without expertise

Human Paragon 3

2014-08-23, 07:39 PM

If you don't like it just double everyon's proficiency bonus to skill checks and triple the rogue's.

obryn

2014-08-23, 07:49 PM

A medium difficulty check is dc15, my level 4 rogue would fail it 55% of the time and that's with expertise. That sucks for me, he should be GREAT and unskilled people should suck and only have a really, really low chance of success.
So basically what you want is for training to matter more than talent? Right now, in 5e, talent > training until mid-levels for most classes (bards and rogues, excepted). I think it works well enough for a game like D&D, in which I'm not a fan of skills in general.

Well, keeping in mind these are all tweaks, there are a few things you can do.

(1) Reduce all DCs by 5. This helps everyone, but it fits with general adventurer competence at moderate tasks. Moderate = DC 10 now.

(2) Give Trained characters a boost. I don't like double proficiency bonus for this; it isn't much at low levels. So my suggestions are (a) Give a Trained character their Stat modifier again as a bonus, or (b) give a Trained character a +5 bonus over and above Stat + Proficiency. The former scales more, but the latter is much easier to track.

(3) (my personal favorite) Give Trained characters FATE-like "Aspects" for their Trained skills. (Or, backgrounds. Or, classes. Or, races. Or some combination of the above.) A Trained character gets to invoke one of two options a number of times per Short (Long?) Rest equal to their Proficiency bonus, after they roll a skill check and see the result. (a) Get a +5 bonus, or (b) a reroll.

These are all ways to make the game work better for you if you like what else it offers.

Sir_Leorik

2014-08-23, 09:28 PM

Creating your own content, modifying some rules to taste, incorporating modular options, and so on aren't done because anything is actually broken or non-functional; they're just twisting the game more to your taste. I love putting Sriracha on my pizza, but I'm not doing it because the Pizza was incomplete or inedible without it. Though it totally is. Sriracha + pizza = amazing, and I can't live without. Sriracha + mac & cheese = even more amazing.

Let me see if I understand your analogy. House-ruling in order to customize your game to your tastes is like adding Sriracha to your pizza. Would house-ruling the system because its broken be like ordering a pizza and having to put it in your oven because the pizza place you ordered from didn't finish baking it?

My first thought to the skill "problem" was let everyone have half proficiency bonus to untrained skills but that steps on the Bard's toes. Then I thought about doubling proficiency bonus but that steps on the Rogue's/Bard's toes again... What would people think of doubling ability modifiers + proficiency bonus? A level 20, 20 dex rogue would rock a +22 (10 dex + 12 proficiency) to stealth for example. That allows everyone to be better and Rogues/Bards to be even better.

Why not just use the Ability Check DCs as a range? Easy could be from 6 to 10, Moderate from 11 to 15, etc.

You -do- know that there is absolutely no skilled involved in dice throwing, right? That's just superstition.

The Gambler's Fallacy, to be precise. Nevertheless, I constantly see players who switch dice, blame their dice, or in some way indicate they don't understand that a randomly generated number is just that: randomly generated.

Elderand

2014-08-23, 09:45 PM

The Gambler's Fallacy, to be precise. Nevertheless, I constantly see players who switch dice, blame their dice, or in some way indicate they don't understand that a randomly generated number is just that: randomly generated.

And thinking that way is a fallacy too, dice aren't perfect. All dices are loaded toward certain number. Just the painting of the numbers on a dice can unbalance it. Even precision dice as used in casino of las vegas will show some predilection for certain numbers if rolled enough time.

And I doubt most gamers use such dice.

Then there is also the following fallacy. Random isn't the same thing as equaly likely. The roll of a d20 is both random and idealy equaly likely.
The roll of 3d6 is also random, but it does not have equaly likely result.

Hell if you want to be absolutly specific, dice throwing isn't random at all. You can predict you're going to get a number, a fairly well defined number at that. On a d20 you're going to get a positive integer between 1 and 20 included. As far as numbers go that's extremely precise.
As far the universe go that's ridiculously precise. You're not going to throw your d20 and end up with 5 tons of purple tuna.

Is there skill in dice throwing ? No. but thinking dice are random and perfectly balanced is just as naive.

Sir_Leorik

2014-08-23, 09:52 PM

And thinking that way is a fallacy too, dice aren't perfect. All dices are loaded toward certain number. Just the painting of the numbers on a dice can unbalance it. Even precision dice as used in casino of las vegas will show some predilection for certain numbers if rolled enough time.

And I doubt most gamers use such dice.

Then there is also the following fallacy. Random isn't the same thing as equaly likely. The roll of a d20 is both random and idealy equaly likely.
The roll of 3d6 is also random, but it does not have equaly likely result.

Hell if you want to be absolutly specific, dice throwing isn't random at all. You can predict you're going to get a number, a fairly well defined number at that. On a d20 you're going to get a positive integer between 1 and 20 included. As far as numbers go that's extremely precise.
As far the universe go that's ridiculously precise. You're not going to throw your d20 and end up with 5 tons of purple tuna.

Is there skill in dice throwing ? No. but thinking dice are random and perfectly balanced is just as naive.

I'm referring to players who keep complaining when their dice don't roll higher than a 7, but act like it's natural when they roll three 20's in a roll. Or players who don't understand that each roll of the die is independent from the last roll and the next roll.

I know that dice aren't perfect, especially dice that are several years old and edges have started to wear away. But they're relatively random and for some reason plenty of players can't seem to comprehend that.

MeeposFire

2014-08-23, 10:19 PM

I'm referring to players who keep complaining when their dice don't roll higher than a 7, but act like it's natural when they roll three 20's in a roll. Or players who don't understand that each roll of the die is independent from the last roll and the next roll.

I know that dice aren't perfect, especially dice that are several years old and edges have started to wear away. But they're relatively random and for some reason plenty of players can't seem to comprehend that.

Actually supposedly there is a technique to throwing dice, at least for craps, but that it is not universally believed. They did have a tv special on it though I guess it would depend if you believe them or not.

I would imagine that if you really tried you can game the dice but it would take a lot of time and energy devoted to learning how to do it and it will not be allowed at the table. Seriously how many 20s could you roll until people thought you were cheating? D&D has an advantage though in that it uses multiple types of dice so you would not be able to concentrate on just one thing like you do in craps.

obryn

2014-08-23, 10:28 PM

Let me see if I understand your analogy. House-ruling in order to customize your game to your tastes is like adding Sriracha to your pizza. Would house-ruling the system because its broken be like ordering a pizza and having to put it in your oven because the pizza place you ordered from didn't finish baking it
Yep! Or, "I ordered pepperoni but I wanted sausage!" "Nothing is wrong, just take off the sausage and add your own pepperoni!"

The issue is with the assertion there's no problem, not with providing a potential resolution.

Actually supposedly there is a technique to throwing dice, at least for craps, but that it is not universally believed. They did have a tv special on it though I guess it would depend if you believe them or not.
There is. It involves holding the dice a certain way and spinning them so the numbers on the sides are less likely to come up. It's not perfect, of course, in part because the staff is watching for it and will have a nice talk with you, but it does improve your odds.

akaddk

2014-08-23, 11:42 PM

Chaosvii7

2014-08-24, 12:07 AM

So what are you going to give an 11th-level rogue so that they don't feel screwed over?

Funny you should mention that.

I was originally planning to give Rogues an Extra attack AT 11th level. I'm still not sold on the idea, solely because I don't know what that will do to Rogue besides give them another chance to Sneak Attack, but I'm not opposed to it.

SiuiS

2014-08-24, 01:36 AM

Extended checks take the bite off the RNG spread, too.

I'll be honest, though, I think it's perfectly adequate for the kind of game D&D usually is. Just make sure the DCs are reasonable.

"Reasonable DCs"'isn't an easy thing to nail though. What's reasonable? What's the math scale? Are we certain? Are we sure that this works best with extended rolls? Will it hold up across dice bells?

I remember the skill system being functional but looking broken; I also remember that their next iteration was very functional but only if you didn't roll as simulation, and the next one worked great if all the DCs were 4 lower or based on +4 over +5.

We'll have to do enough numbers crunching over time to show clear patterns and trends despite bias, not because of them.

People often seem to use "houseruling" as a dirty word, but let's keep in mind that most of the standard conventions of the game started out as "house rules." Critical hits? House rule. Fumbles? House rule. Max hit points at first level? House rule.[/auote]

Ah what? Fumbles really are a thing now?

[QUOTE=Stubbazubba;17985418]If house rules are supposed to be the answer for anything imperfect, what's the new edition for?

Money.

And hell, it works. 5e us exactly what they could get the most money out of me for; a well-rounded if lack-luster revamp that would be perfect for my children to find in a few decades.

Wouldn't it be easier to roll 2d10 or 3d6 to handle the more 'unskilled' people not having so wide of a chance of being good?

2d10 gives you a much higher chance of getting around an 11 instead of lower or higher numbers
3d6 removes 1,2,19,20 from your rolls but gives you even more weight towards the middle.

Neither or those rolling styles require you to mess with the Proficiency System, which I see as being precariously balanced already. It doesn't require the DCs to be competely revamped but it does give those with more bonus to a skill a higher chance of succeeding on harder DCs from someone with no skill.

Worth a shot.

Oh look, someone on the internet is making outrageously extreme claims in order to support their bias and denigrate someone instead of attacking their argument.

Oh, don't fool yourself to think our positions are equal, sunshine. Yours is "I'm def an authority, totes, I've played, like, dozens of complete games. You know, probably." And mine is "I find this ridiculous because on the bald face of it, if you have played a dozen complete campaigns, they wouldn't be far apart enough to be fistinguishable from each other and it's likely you haven't done anything but rehash the same thing repeatedly".

I am directly attacking your argument, because your argument is asinine and itself couched in poor rhetoric. I just thought that someone who took the time to validate their position, even as tenuously as you did, would understand the thrust of my dubiousness.

I just bought mine 2 hours ago, and I have to say, I'm pleased. It may not be the best thing ever, but it rekindles my interest in DnD which was lost with 4e (As a note, I was excited about 4th right up until I started my read through of the core set: I was thrilled while I was unwrapping them). I've got dozens of character ideas based on what's available, and will keep an ear to the ground for a game I can test them in, and having done a dry run for character creation I don't feel either flooded with needless amounts of options or deprived of opportunities to customize to fit my concept. 4/5 stars.

Legit. 4e is beautiful whenever I'm not in the middle of it's circuits and guts. Pair o'Dice was right though, and I'm starting to feel it could have been handled better.

I'm glad it inspires you. The system's aesthetic pleases me even though I think the book is too sense for casual perusal. But the art and the colors trigger my synesthesia in fun ways. I am drawn to it despite myself. What I read here is subtly pleasing. It's not 3e, but them the Internet preferred 3e is literally retarded, in the repels mental sense and does not follow logical or rational sequence sense.

I mean, the argument that you create money out of thin air by performing a profession check but that you cannot use craft: smithing, craft: smelting, profession: mining and craft: weaponsmith in sequence to increase value of raw materials you mine yourself? That's not logical or rational at all.

A medium difficulty check is dc15, my level 4 rogue would fail it 55% of the time and that's with expertise. That sucks for me, he should be GREAT and unskilled people should suck and only have a really, really low chance of success.

Problem: define "medium difficulty task".

Is jumping a 20' chasm medium difficulty? Probably not.
Is jumping he same chasm while being chased by rabid warg's and wounded medium difficulty? Maybe.

Kurald Galain

2014-08-24, 04:19 AM

"Reasonable DCs"'isn't an easy thing to nail though.

Come on, we're talking high school-level math here, not rocket science.

If you start with what the probabilities should be then it's pretty easy to derive what the modifiers are. However, that's not what the designers did; they instead went by just taking some arbitrary numbers that feel nice and hoping it works out somehow.

SiuiS

2014-08-24, 05:15 AM

Probabilities? Have you been to an American high school? I was denied acces to geometry my second year because there weren't enough people. They put me in remedial patterns instead. There are workig adults who don't know what a Fibonacci is, or why it has a sequence, or why rabbits have sex for it.

And let's also be fair; during the playtest I laid out actual math to rigorously show that A) fighters were fully capable of dealin tremendous and level appropriate damage and B) the skill system was functional and consistent and simply a magnitude lower than people wanted and then only because they misapplied it, and people still whined about how fighters couldn't do damage and the skill system was borken freoevr!!1! And all that.

Like your "took arbitrary feelgood numbers" jab there. So you know that? Do you have proof? Ave you broken down the system and it's application conditions? Or are you just throwif that out there? Obfuscating actual data with opinion-as-fact is part of why reasonable DCs are hard. It's difficult to look at the numbers and devise their use when people are just telling you to give it it's stupid why bother.

Falka

2014-08-24, 06:57 AM

Imo people just grief because the DC table is worded poorly and the PHB does not give enough examples.

Medium dificulty (DC 15) should be reworded as 'medium challenge' or just 'challenging'. Meaning that here you have a standard chance of success, but also it's not guaranteed. It's, you know, a challenge.

It doesn't mean that's the "average" level you should try to achieve.

Most DCs in published adventures, to beat mundane tasks (like lockpicking a normal lock, getting past guards, etc.) range between DCs 10-13, which admittedly is kind of easy. A group Stealth check for a level 1 adventure has DC 10.

One you get reading these adventures you get a better grip of what is a fair DC.

Sir_Leorik

2014-08-24, 10:01 AM

Actually supposedly there is a technique to throwing dice, at least for craps, but that it is not universally believed. They did have a tv special on it though I guess it would depend if you believe them or not.

I would imagine that if you really tried you can game the dice but it would take a lot of time and energy devoted to learning how to do it and it will not be allowed at the table. Seriously how many 20s could you roll until people thought you were cheating? D&D has an advantage though in that it uses multiple types of dice so you would not be able to concentrate on just one thing like you do in craps.

I think we can all agree that this is considered cheating and should be discouraged.

Yep! Or, "I ordered pepperoni but I wanted sausage!" "Nothing is wrong, just take off the sausage and add your own pepperoni!"

The issue is with the assertion there's no problem, not with providing a potential resolution.

So the question is, is the pizza under baked, or does it have toppings you don't like? I think that a game that absolutely fails to achieve its core goals is like the under baked pizza; you should be demanding your money back from the pizza place (and maybe calling the Department of Health). But if the toppings aren't to your liking, you can always peel them off. By the same token, if the game is inherently sound, but you don't like one or two features, or feel that different features would fit better into your campaign, that doesn't mean the game is broken.

To take a few examples that I've seen on these forums, there have been complaints about the Ability Checks (specifically that Proficiency Bonuses are too low and Skill DCs are too high), that certain spells like Animate Dead, Conjure Woodland Beings and True Polymorph (to name a few) break the game, and that the Ranger sucks.

I feel that its too soon to judge whether the math in the Ability Checks are unbalanced. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, so why not play a few sessions and see whether the math needs to be recalculated.

Re: the Ranger; its funny that everyone is complaining about how lousy the Ranger is, considering how overpowered the 4E Two-Blade Ranger was (before they nerfed it).

Animate Dead has two major restrictions: one that it needs to be constantly recast to maintain control over the Undead, and a roleplaying one. Even if the party's okay with a bunch of Skeletons and Zombies accompanying them, I doubt that the townsfolk will respond with anything less than Pitchforks and TorchesTM. I'm hoping to run a 5E campaign set in Ravenloft in the near future, and if any player tries to cast Animate Dead on a regular basis, they will have to make Ravenloft Dark Powers Checks. Eventually, if they keep casting the spell I'm going to let them know that the chance of failing the Dark Powers Checks will be rising, especially if they use higher level spell slots to cast the spell.

Regarding the Conjure series of spells (Conjure Animals, Celestial, Elemental, Fey, Minor Elemental, Woodland Beings), all of these spells are Concentration spells. A blown Constitution Saving Throw to maintain Concentration will send all 8 Pixies conjured by Conjure Woodland Beings away. On the other hand, these spells are better than Animate Dead, since the caster doesn't need to use an action to issue a command to the Conjured creatures.

As for True Polymorph... whoah. Yeah, this spell is broken and needs some errata, stat! Luckily its a 9th level spell, and WotC can do some damage control quickly.

But I don't think True Polymorph being overpowered ruins the whole game. I do think that if the math for Ability Checks, Attack Rolls and Saving Throw DCs are wonky, that the game has a problem. But I haven't seen this cropping up in either the Playtest or the Encounters game I played. Right now I'm very satisfied with the game as is (True Polymorph excluded).

Kurald Galain

2014-08-24, 12:05 PM

Probabilities? Have you been to an American high school?

I get the impression you're taking this much too personal. If you're going to make posts like that then I'm not interested in discussing this with you any further.

But for the record, I'm from Europe so I haven't been to an American high school, no.

SaintRidley

2014-08-24, 01:39 PM

Stubbazubba

2014-08-24, 08:13 PM

I think that Sius's point there is that what you see as high school level math is in America often glossed over as a lesson for one day in the entirety of your high school career or completely left out, only to be learned if you choose to take statistics classes in college. Understanding probabilities in America is a skill that statisticians and people who are just interested in knowing it have, and not many other people.

I disagree. I think basic probability is covered in an appropriate amount of depth in high-school level courses. It's just that most of us go into fields that don't require us to constantly use it again and again. I don't remember 60% of the things I learned in my high school math courses. That doesn't mean it was taught poorly, it means my brain has a limited number of skills it can keep up and what I actually do every day tells it there are much better uses of that space than matrix operations. So your last sentence is still true; only people who use probabilities on a regular basis will be comfortable working with probabilities, but I think that's also true in, say, Europe.

This necessarily means that unless you happen to pick up role-playing in that year in high school where you learn about probability, you will have to go out and review just how that works. And most role-players just don't care enough to do so. They aren't aware of the odds and that doesn't bother them. Most people are just fine if their character sheet says, "You are a fearsome warrior!" without really caring about the specifics of what fearsome would really be in this game. They want to do "cool stuff" often enough and laugh with their friends. And that requires zero math review.

There is a good chunk of the player-base that does care about the odds, and we are they. We go out and review that probability math, we use tools like Anydice and know the odds, and we get disgruntled over certain things because of it. These two groups' needs aren't mutually exclusive, of course; you can fulfill either or both of them without sacrificing the other, but it's important to remember that most of the people I have played with locally (i.e. not online) were unaware of the odds and completely not bothered by it.

Re: extended rolls

While extended rolls is one way to solve the problem, it seems a bit of a clunky way to do so; it forces you to take more table time for the same amount of task resolution. Sometimes a jump should just be a jump and be done with.

Re: difficulty

Yeah, there is wide disagreement as to what constitutes a moderate challenge. The designers did us no favors in slapping subjective monikers on various DCs. At the very least, we need to know for whom these DCs are Very Easy, Easy, Moderate, Hard, and Very Hard. It is evidently not 1st-level PCs. Beyond that, we need to know what a DC 15 check should look like, because right now we either read Moderate and find it disproportionately difficult (I'm gonna die jumping this 12-ft. chasm), or we put a whole lot of context (you're on fire and have one leg and are being chased by a dragon!) to make it make sense. "Whatever the DM thinks is appropriate" is unacceptable if there are no guidelines for them to work in.

SiuiS

2014-08-24, 08:47 PM

SaintRidley is correct.

I get the impression you're taking this much too personal. If you're going to make posts like that then I'm not interested in discussing this with you any further.

What, you're allowed to make unsubstantiated statements about incompetence that have been refuted successfully in the past, but I can't make a joke? Lighten up, grumpy Gus.

I disagree.

Wow. Did you edit this post just now? O.o

High school education is a politically charged thig, but suffice that data shows many high school children are less capable of executing basic math and language functions than pre-highschool children; average reading level tops out at 6th grade level for a 12 grade system (except for those avid readers who simply get rolled into "college reading level" early on), and there was serious consideration of removing basic math from the curriculum because children will always have access to a calculator and don't need to know how to do sums on their own.

In 5th grade I had work involving X parts per million in a solution, that was poured out half-way and mixed wrb water, poured out a quarter and mixed with water, and poured out three quarters and mixed with water (solve for remainin ppm). The year after me did not have those lessons. It's an unfortunate casualty of a weird And arbitrary system.

I think basic probability is covered in an appropriate amount of depth in high-school level courses. It's just that most of us go into fields that don't require us to constantly use it again and again. I don't remember 60% of the things I learned in my high school math courses. That doesn't mean it was taught poorly, it means my brain has a limited number of skills it can keep up and what I actually do every day tells it there are much better uses of that space than matrix operations. So your last sentence is still true; only people who use probabilities on a regular basis will be comfortable working with probabilities, but I think that's also true in, say, Europe.

This necessarily means that unless you happen to pick up role-playing in that year in high school where you learn about probability, you will have to go out and review just how that works. And most role-players just don't care enough to do so. They aren't aware of the odds and that doesn't bother them. Most people are just fine if their character sheet says, "You are a fearsome warrior!" without really caring about the specifics of what fearsome would really be in this game. They want to do "cool stuff" often enough and laugh with their friends. And that requires zero math review.

There is a good chunk of the player-base that does care about the odds, and we are they. We go out and review that probability math, we use tools like Anydice and know the odds, and we get disgruntled over certain things because of it. These two groups' needs aren't mutually exclusive, of course; you can fulfill either or both of them without sacrificing the other, but it's important to remember that most of the people I have played with locally (i.e. not online) were unaware of the odds and completely not bothered by it.

But when that Anydice probability breakdown doesn't support the being disgruntled, it's ignored. As are rules about when to apply random number generation; I notice every argument about bad DCs is based on situations dice aren't called for, but this is swept under the rug because a logical absurdity is more important to trumpet than a rational system of application.

[wuote]Re: difficulty

Yeah, there is wide disagreement as to what constitutes a moderate challenge. The designers did us no favors in slapping subjective monikers on various DCs. At the very least, we need to know for whom these DCs are Very Easy, Easy, Moderate, Hard, and Very Hard.[/quote]

There are many games which do without these hard requirements and function very well though. I find it strange that we are required to generate hard numbers and stick to them forever rather than allow different campaigns with different tones to set their own benchmarks, or without beig allowed to draw from a wider culture of gaming expectations than pure simulation.

Caelic

2014-08-24, 09:36 PM

A medium difficulty check is dc15, my level 4 rogue would fail it 55% of the time and that's with expertise. That sucks for me, he should be GREAT and unskilled people should suck and only have a really, really low chance of success.

Well, let's see how that stacks up against some percentages in older editions.

A fourth level thief in first edition AD&D had the following percentage chances to successfully complete tasks:

Pick Pockets: 45%
Open Locks: 37%
Find/Remove Traps: 35%
Move Silently: 33%
Hide in Shadows: 25%
Hear Noise: 15%
Climb Walls: 88%
Read Languages: 20%

Actually, a 45% success rating seems pretty good, compared to most of these. Now, it's true that those chances improved with a high dexterity--but if you're calculating a 55% chance of failure on a DC 15, then that means you're assuming a bonus of +4, and no Dexterity bonus whatsoever. If we factor in a more-than-reasonable Dexterity of 16, the chance of success suddenly shoots up to 60%; if we factor in an easily-achievable 18, it goes up to 65%. In the meantime, our first edition thief with an 18 Dexterity has a 55% chance to pick pockets, a 52% chance to open locks, a 40% chance to find/remove traps...

Y'know? The 5e rogue is still coming out comfortably on top here.

obryn

2014-08-24, 09:58 PM

Caelic

2014-08-24, 10:03 PM

1e and RC D&D have laughably low success rates for thief skills, though. It's a point of frequent contention how bad they are, and many folks have suggested fixes.

I agree that the 5e rogue is better off, but that's setting the bar incredibly low. Like, on the floor.

It does, however, give us a low end for comparison, Obryn, and highlight the fact that "A first level thief should succeed eighty percent of the time at least!" is not a given, nor a constant throughout the history of the game.

If a first level thief succeeds eighty percent of the time at a medium-difficulty task--keeping in mind that that means that any OTHER proficient character should succeed seventy percent of the time at that same medium-difficulty task--what's the point of the entire lower half of the difficulty scale?

I could go with an eighty-percent success ratio for EASY tasks--as in, "Tasks that are a little too difficult to be declared automatic successes."

obryn

2014-08-24, 10:53 PM

It does, however, give us a low end for comparison, Obryn, and highlight the fact that "A first level thief should succeed eighty percent of the time at least!" is not a given, nor a constant throughout the history of the game.

If a first level thief succeeds eighty percent of the time at a medium-difficulty task--keeping in mind that that means that any OTHER proficient character should succeed seventy percent of the time at that same medium-difficulty task--what's the point of the entire lower half of the difficulty scale?

I could go with an eighty-percent success ratio for EASY tasks--as in, "Tasks that are a little too difficult to be declared automatic successes."
I don't disagree with this, as you can see upthread.

I'm simply pointing out that 1e Thieves are acknowledged as being pretty terrible at Thieving and are a bad point for comparison. :smallsmile:

Marius

2014-08-25, 06:48 AM

Well, let's see how that stacks up against some percentages in older editions.

A fourth level thief in first edition AD&D had the following percentage chances to successfully complete tasks:

Pick Pockets: 45%
Open Locks: 37%
Find/Remove Traps: 35%
Move Silently: 33%
Hide in Shadows: 25%
Hear Noise: 15%
Climb Walls: 88%
Read Languages: 20%

Actually, a 45% success rating seems pretty good, compared to most of these. Now, it's true that those chances improved with a high dexterity--but if you're calculating a 55% chance of failure on a DC 15, then that means you're assuming a bonus of +4, and no Dexterity bonus whatsoever. If we factor in a more-than-reasonable Dexterity of 16, the chance of success suddenly shoots up to 60%; if we factor in an easily-achievable 18, it goes up to 65%. In the meantime, our first edition thief with an 18 Dexterity has a 55% chance to pick pockets, a 52% chance to open locks, a 40% chance to find/remove traps...

Y'know? The 5e rogue is still coming out comfortably on top here.

Who cares what the ad&d rogue could do? I played one for years and they SUCKED. The only reason I could do anything was because of DM fiat. I'm just saying what I want NOW and right now I want a decent rogue, capable and reliable.

If a first level thief succeeds eighty percent of the time at a medium-difficulty task--keeping in mind that that means that any OTHER proficient character should succeed seventy percent of the time at that same medium-difficulty task--what's the point of the entire lower half of the difficulty scale?

I could go with an eighty-percent success ratio for EASY tasks--as in, "Tasks that are a little too difficult to be declared automatic successes."

The lower end DCs should be for untrained characters or characters without expertise. You may have only a little chance to fail but you could fail.

Anyhow, the skill system I want is impossible to houserule into 5e. I want granularity, customized advancement, reliability for proficient characters and less randomness. And all of that would mean that I should chance the whole skill system, every class, every background, the multiclassing rules, some feats, the adventures DCs and who knows how many more things. I might as well just play another game.

I'll try 5e if I get the chance but not playing a skillmonkey as they seem to be quite bad in this edition.

Kurald Galain

2014-08-25, 07:15 AM

Well, let's see how that stacks up against some percentages in older editions.

Yes, let's.

At which level can a character reliably perform a DC 10 task?

In 3E, that would be level 1 if it relates to your primary attribute, level 2 otherwise (or level 1 with a feat).
In 4E, that would be level 1 if it relates to your primary attribute, level 4 otherwise (or level 1 with a feat).
In 2E, that would be level 1 for nonweapon proficiencies, regardless of attribute.
In 5E, that would be level thirteen if it relates to your primary attribute (or level 8 with two feats), and never otherwise (or level 9 if you're a rogue).

Hm, that's a pretty obvious difference :smallamused:

Noldo

2014-08-25, 07:30 AM

Anyhow, the skill system I want is impossible to houserule into 5e. I want granularity, customized advancement, reliability for proficient characters and less randomness. And all of that would mean that I should chance the whole skill system, every class, every background, the multiclassing rules, some feats, the adventures DCs and who knows how many more things. I might as well just play another game.

I'll try 5e if I get the chance but not playing a skillmonkey as they seem to be quite bad in this edition.

Without running any math, I would expect that need for reliability and advancement could be met by an universal modification where by proficiency bonus of X for skills would be replaced by equal proficiency pool of Xd6. The floor would remain the same (so that even proficient characters could fail in occasion), but average would climb quite rapidly and the variance would be reduced as the character's proficiency increases since increased number of dice in the pool would move the distribution more towards a bell curve.

Some testing should be done in order to determine whether Expertise in its current form (i.e. doubling of the number of dice) would be too effective. Alternative Expertise could be implemented as Advantage on Proficiency Dice (i.e. Roll Xd6 twice and keep higher of each dice or higher of total rolls, whichever works in the table).

I hope that the proficiency dice variant, which, according to the rumors, will be included in DMG, is practically this instead of scaling proficiency die (d4 -> d6 -> d8...), since that doesn't really make proficient characters more reliable, just increase their maximum potential.

Marius

2014-08-25, 07:45 AM

Without running any math, I would expect that need for reliability and advancement could be met by an universal modification where by proficiency bonus of X for skills would be replaced by equal proficiency pool of Xd6. The floor would remain the same (so that even proficient characters could fail in occasion), but average would climb quite rapidly and the variance would be reduced as the character's proficiency increases since increased number of dice in the pool would move the distribution more towards a bell curve.

Some testing should be done in order to determine whether Expertise in its current form (i.e. doubling of the number of dice) would be too effective. Alternative Expertise could be implemented as Advantage on Proficiency Dice (i.e. Roll Xd6 twice and keep higher of each dice or higher of total rolls, whichever works in the table).

I hope that the proficiency dice variant, which, according to the rumors, will be included in DMG, is practically this instead of scaling proficiency die (d4 -> d6 -> d8...), since that doesn't really make proficient characters more reliable, just increase their maximum potential.

Each character is still stuck with the same skills for the whole game. And the DMG variant adds more randomness!

I don't want to be that pessimist guy but it's hard to hope that an alternative skill system I like would be included in the DMG.

Caelic

2014-08-25, 09:47 AM

Yes, let's.

At which level can a character reliably perform a DC 10 task?

In 3E, that would be level 1 if it relates to your primary attribute, level 2 otherwise (or level 1 with a feat).
In 4E, that would be level 1 if it relates to your primary attribute, level 4 otherwise (or level 1 with a feat).
In 2E, that would be level 1 for nonweapon proficiencies, regardless of attribute.
In 5E, that would be level thirteen if it relates to your primary attribute (or level 8 with two feats), and never otherwise (or level 9 if you're a rogue).

Hm, that's a pretty obvious difference :smallamused:

Point, and I'd argue that this really reinforces another point that came up earlier in the thread: the spectrum of DCs in 5e should be much more clearly labeled, and accompanied by examples. A LOT of the tasks that were DC 10 in 3.5, I would suggest, should fall under DC5 in 5e. However, without concrete examples, we can't say for sure.

hawklost

2014-08-25, 09:51 AM

Point, and I'd argue that this really reinforces another point that came up earlier in the thread: the spectrum of DCs in 5e should be much more clearly labeled, and accompanied by examples. A LOT of the tasks that were DC 10 in 3.5, I would suggest, should fall under DC5 in 5e. However, without concrete examples, we can't say for sure.

Compare low level adventures of 3e/PF to the Starter Set and HotDQ DCs we have in 5e. That will give a good show of at least lower level expected DCs.

I remember that in Rise of the Runelords, there was a DC check in the first part of the adventure that was over DC 20 (I believe it was close to 25-30 but don't remember). It was a check for the 'highest cha char in the group'. This was at lvl 1 or 2 I think, but definitely lower than 5.

Caelic

2014-08-25, 10:04 AM

I remember that in Rise of the Runelords, there was a DC check in the first part of the adventure that was over DC 20 (I believe it was close to 25-30 but don't remember). It was a check for the 'highest cha char in the group'. This was at lvl 1 or 2 I think, but definitely lower than 5.

...and that's not totally unreasonable for, say, a Diplomacy check in a system where the right race, feats, and synergies can net you a +11 or so to the check (Pathfinder) or +15 or higher (3.5).

Yeah, I'll be very interested to see what typical DCs are in 5e modules.

Nagash

2014-08-25, 10:29 AM

Got my phb today.

Pretty much what I expected. A simplified and very playable version of 3e. I'll definitely play a few sessions to get the feel for it.

But... I think theres not enough character growth over time for this to become my go to game for real campaigns. Mini campaigns and one shots it looks good for though.

hawklost

2014-08-25, 10:46 AM

...and that's not totally unreasonable for, say, a Diplomacy check in a system where the right race, feats, and synergies can net you a +11 or so to the check (Pathfinder) or +15 or higher (3.5).

Yeah, I'll be very interested to see what typical DCs are in 5e modules.

So far, I have not seen a single DC over 20 for the adventure modules (I have not read through all of DQ, only the first 3 sections though and am playing Mines as a PC so cannot see anything we haven't reached yet). And even the DC 20s were for doing things like trying to extract info from hardcore enemies or trying to break something extremely hard. They even actually have calls for DC5 checks, which I don't remember seeing in an adventure from 3.5 or PF before.

That of course isn't specific to all modules, but it definitely feels like a DC 15 at this point for lvls 1-4 is considered extremely challenging (PCs do many stupid things to get it) or are a Perception Check (that is the only one where I see DC 15 as more common). DC 20 seems to be for exceptional things that the PCs could do in other ways but decide to do it the hard way.

Oh, and I was wrong about the lvl 1 Diplomacy check in PF, it was higher than 31 because my Bard with all the synergies had a +11 and still could not make it without DM handing out bonuses.

Jacob.Tyr

2014-08-25, 11:28 AM

I'm actually rather happy with 5e, but I came to this conclusion when I started reading PF and 3.5 rules and thinking about them after I'd spent a bit of time pouring over Next. There are just so many streamlined bits that make sense, balance points (concentration), and overall few bad options. Hell, I'm having a hard time figuring out what class I like most, toss-up between Ranger, Fighter, Paladin, and Warlock at this point. Some of the options I initially assumed were bad due to forum discussion actually seem really solid to me, and I don't feel like there is quite as absurd a level of caster supremacy anymore.

I can't wait to play a Battle Master fighter, for example. Maneuvers that don't waste an action, improve your action, and then have a chance to add a rider? Yes, please.

pwykersotz

2014-08-25, 01:39 PM

Yes, let's.

At which level can a character reliably perform a DC 10 task?

In 3E, that would be level 1 if it relates to your primary attribute, level 2 otherwise (or level 1 with a feat).
In 4E, that would be level 1 if it relates to your primary attribute, level 4 otherwise (or level 1 with a feat).
In 2E, that would be level 1 for nonweapon proficiencies, regardless of attribute.
In 5E, that would be level thirteen if it relates to your primary attribute (or level 8 with two feats), and never otherwise (or level 9 if you're a rogue).

Hm, that's a pretty obvious difference :smallamused:

I hate the 3.5 skill bloating. I don't mind my characters getting better on a linear scale, but I don't want it to be possible on a quadratic scale. The system sucks to account for as a GM, sucks to navigate as a player, and is terrible to stat out for either PC's or NPC's when leveling.

But that's just my opinion.

SiuiS

2014-08-25, 03:28 PM

Yes, let's.

At which level can a character reliably perform a DC 10 task?

In 3E, that would be level 1 if it relates to your primary attribute, level 2 otherwise (or level 1 with a feat).
In 4E, that would be level 1 if it relates to your primary attribute, level 4 otherwise (or level 1 with a feat).
In 2E, that would be level 1 for nonweapon proficiencies, regardless of attribute.
In 5E, that would be level thirteen if it relates to your primary attribute (or level 8 with two feats), and never otherwise (or level 9 if you're a rogue).

Hm, that's a pretty obvious difference :smallamused:

You do realize that the very basis of this examination is flawed, yes? Not only are the conditions which require dice different, but the assumptions and designations behind dice have changed. DC 10 is meaningless as a set point.

All editions have the exact same chance of hitting DC 10 out-the gate; 50%. Well, 55%. You've hidden variables behind an undefined measure and then applied a set of standards to something incorrectly and to a thing specifically designed not to work wth those standards.

This is bad science.

akaddk

2014-08-25, 05:21 PM

Some of the options I initially assumed were bad due to forum discussion actually seem really solid to me, and I don't feel like there is quite as absurd a level of caster supremacy anymore.

You, sir, are an exception to the vocal forum minority who seem determined to judge everything negatively before even attempting to experience it at the table. They remind me of ISIS.

Kornaki

2014-08-25, 05:52 PM

They remind me of ISIS.

What. :smallsigh:

akaddk

2014-08-25, 06:02 PM

What. :smallsigh:

People who make irrational judgements and act on them without putting any reasonable or logical thought into them before doing so and who seem to lack the empathy required to walk in another person's shoes or think outside of a very narrowly defined and rigid box.

Caelic

2014-08-25, 06:09 PM

You, sir, are an exception to the vocal forum minority who seem determined to judge everything negatively before even attempting to experience it at the table. They remind me of ISIS.

Uhm...wow.

Just...wow.

Sir_Leorik

2014-08-25, 06:51 PM

SiuiS

2014-08-25, 07:02 PM

Quick test of function; how would you build a Lawful Incarnate in 5e?

Let's say we want to hit basic powers (sudden armor, sudden weapon, variety of offense options), undead servant (needn't be undead, I suppose, could be fluffed) and boost able output.

People who make irrational judgements and act on them without putting any reasonable or logical thought into them before doing so and who seem to lack the empathy required to walk in another person's shoes or think outside of a very narrowly defined and rigid box.

Let's avoid political statements, s'il vous plaît.

You've left out the most important difference: Advantage. Roll twice, take better result. Let's see a 3.X or PF PC do that.

Actually, there were several powers and such like that. And an entire stance, I think, but someone stole my ToB.

Sir_Leorik

2014-08-25, 07:08 PM

Actually, there were several powers and such like that. And an entire stance, I think, but someone stole my ToB.

Perhaps, but ToB wasn't exactly Core (and isn't street legal in Pathfinder Society games). There were Powers that allowed skill rerolls in 4E straight out of the box, but they usually arrived in Paragon Tier.

Mr.Moron

2014-08-25, 07:11 PM

You've left out the most important difference: Advantage. Roll twice, take better result. Let's see a 3.X or PF PC do that.

This is a fair point. With as little as +5 to the Check you've got your failure chance for DC 10 below 5%. Which is kind of the floor for "Proficient in your primary stat".

Honestly I like that the numbers sprawl is down in this edition. It means there is a space that exists such that you can give challenges that

A) That the party expert has at least some chance to fail.
B) Anyone in the party has some chance of succeeding.

In 3.X the difference between specalist and non-specialist was so huge that if you put in challenges that they had some chance of failing, if they weren't around, were otherwise busy, you were out of luck. If you put in challenges that anyone in the party had at least some chance of doing, they were in auto-pass territory for the specialist.

Muenster Man

2014-08-25, 07:24 PM

This is a fair point. With as little as +5 to the Check you've got your failure chance for DC 10 below 5%. Which is kind of the floor for "Proficient in your primary stat".

Honestly I like that the numbers sprawl is down in this edition. It means there is a space that exists such that you can give challenges that

A) The party expert at that chance has some chance to fail.
B) Anyone in the party has some chance of succeeding.

In 3.X the difference between specalist and non-specialist was so huge that if you put in challenges that they had some chance of failing, if they weren't around, were otherwise busy, you were out of luck. If you put in challenges that anyone in the party had at least some chance of doing, they were in auto-pass territory for the specialist.

The differences between specialists and non-specialists are a little too small for my liking in 5E, especially at low levels, but for the reasons you listed I think it's far better than the problems with 3.X

obryn

2014-08-25, 07:41 PM

You've left out the most important difference: Advantage. Roll twice, take better result. Let's see a 3.X or PF PC do that.
Yes, Advantage is a much better way of representing reliable skill use than crazy scaling bonuses are.

Feats like Actor, Dungeon Delver, etc. fill the role of crazy 3e bonus stacking without going completely off the RNG.

Mr.Moron

2014-08-25, 08:01 PM

The differences between specialists and non-specialists are a little too small for my liking in 5E, especially at low levels, but for the reasons you listed I think it's far better than the problems with 3.X

I dunno even "Only 10%" of +2 is a bit more than I think it gives people credit for. That's because as the checks get harder the relative value of 10% increases. Like if you're only going to succeed on a 19 or 20 suddenly being proficient doubles your chances. For most checks in the reasonably hard range (need 9-11 on the roll) you're still getting a 20-30% performance increase off just the bare-bones bonus. This pretty pronounced with advantage. Especially for the very hard challlenges out there.

Chances of making a DC 20 with +3 and advantage: 36% "Probably Not"
Chances of making a DC 20 with +5 and advantage: 51%."Probably Yes".This is a direct increase of 15%. Looking at another way it's 41% more successes or (EDIT) 20% fewer failures. However you wanna slice that particular cake.

Smalls gains aren't small, when chances are slim and stakes are high.

Falka

2014-08-26, 01:25 AM

Yes, let's.

At which level can a character reliably perform a DC 10 task?

In 3E, that would be level 1 if it relates to your primary attribute, level 2 otherwise (or level 1 with a feat).
In 4E, that would be level 1 if it relates to your primary attribute, level 4 otherwise (or level 1 with a feat).
In 2E, that would be level 1 for nonweapon proficiencies, regardless of attribute.
In 5E, that would be level thirteen if it relates to your primary attribute (or level 8 with two feats), and never otherwise (or level 9 if you're a rogue).

Hm, that's a pretty obvious difference :smallamused:

Define reliable. You mean, having a +10 bonus? Any PC with Expertise can start at level 1 with a Skill that has a primary stat for a total of+8, which means that he just needs to roll a 2 (bare minimum, as 1 is an automatic failiure) to pass. That's 95% chance for success.

So any character with a +8 can reliably pass DC 10 tasks.

A character with a primary stat that doesn't have Expertise still has +6 (which means he needs a 4, 85% chance of succeeding). Non optimized characters will have +5, so it means that 80% of the time, they will succeed in the task.

Stubbazubba

2014-08-26, 07:10 AM

But when that Anydice probability breakdown doesn't support the being disgruntled, it's ignored. As are rules about when to apply random number generation; I notice every argument about bad DCs is based on situations dice aren't called for, but this is swept under the rug because a logical absurdity is more important to trumpet than a rational system of application.

The rules about when to apply the RNG are circular or at best subjective; if the DM believes you can "just do it," or that you "just fail," then you don't roll, but if a roll is called for, then you use the RNG. By definition that is always true. There are few to no guidelines given to DMs to determine when they should be rolling or not, outside of obvious cases. What's more, the game essentially tells DMs that they don't need no stinkin' guidelines, because it's their game and they should just do what feels right to them. If you're looking for a rational system of application, 5e's use of the RNG is not it.

There are many games which do without these hard requirements and function very well though.

Except most of them don't function very well, they just don't have anywhere near the exposure that D&D has, and therefore haven't been subjected to as much scrutiny.

I find it strange that we are required to generate hard numbers and stick to them forever rather than allow different campaigns with different tones to set their own benchmarks, or without beig allowed to draw from a wider culture of gaming expectations than pure simulation.

You find it strange that one product cannot be all things to all people? Makes perfect sense to me! If you want to make various different systems that aim to fulfill different gaming expectations or to set a different tone or to create distinct worlds for campaigns of sharply distinct nature, then go and make different games for that. At the very least create a splatbook that retools the system in a few relevant places. Don't just ship an unfinished jumble of numbers and math that every group has to then house rule to make it work for their expectations and turn around and claim that it's super versatile and can cover everything, because that was also true of the basic D&D concept before you ever came along and tried to put numbers to it; unfinished is unfinished.

More than anything, I wish 5e told us what tone and expectations it was actually going for, and then I really just wish it tried to hit that. It reads like it's going for something like 3.5's low-level adventuring model, but it ends up being either a lot more arbitrary (when the DM says no dice) or a lot more random (when the DM says roll). And it makes less and less sense as levels get higher; you're not that much better than when you started, but your enemies supposedly are.

SiuiS

2014-08-27, 02:19 AM

The rules about when to apply the RNG are circular or at best subjective; if the DM believes you can "just do it," or that you "just fail," then you don't roll, but if a roll is called for, then you use the RNG. By definition that is always true. There are few to no guidelines given to DMs to determine when they should be rolling or not, outside of obvious cases. What's more, the game essentially tells DMs that they don't need no stinkin' guidelines, because it's their game and they should just do what feels right to them. If you're looking for a rational system of application, 5e's use of the RNG is not it.

Must FATE, world of darkness, and apocalypse'world don't have these issues. Why do these problems with circular logic and lacking a rational system of application only come up in D&D?

I suspect it's because only D&D players think that rational thought cannot be abstract.

Except most of them don't function very well, they just don't have anywhere near the exposure that D&D has, and therefore haven't been subjected to as much scrutiny.

Pfff.

You find it strange that one product cannot be all things to all people?

No, I find it strange that we are wedded to a method of attempt, and not to any actual results or desire to achieve them. This is obsessive-compulsive, more invested in the proper rituals than in the outcome. The reason D&D can't have a game engine that gives people the outcome they want (and thus a consistent one) is because nobody gives a gosh darn about outcomes. They want procedures that are familiar and safe, first, and they want a nod to similar outcomes second.

It's maddening. So many good things have happened in the last, oh, three decades? As far as gaming and rules design, but to hear people talk about this specific intellectual property, none of the other games ever devised is as good and can't be used in, on or near a D&D table. Heaven forbid context should matter, that's hand waving! Strike from the record the idea that only worthy antagonists should be able to challenge players, that's Magical tea Party jackassery! Ignore that it works in almost every agile application ever, and ignore that following the rote formula for D&D is so destined for failure that we have coined a term strictly to define these D20 heartbreakers.

None of that matters, because a solid abstract framework which can be hacked to handle different loads and different grain is trying to be all things to all people, and that's just nonsense.

manibel02

2014-08-27, 02:55 AM

Hi, would you like to remodelling your kitchen. There is a lot of varieties in the modular design, So you are selecting a good decorators for your kitchen remodelling.Modular Kitchen Chennai (http://woodsworthindustries.com/)

Falka

2014-08-27, 03:21 AM

Somebloke

2014-08-27, 04:49 AM

My first impressions? I liked it, but wasn't overwhelmed. This was actually for a good reason- after over a year of watching the game evolve (and playtesting through two seperate, if short, campaigns), I already knew what I was getting. So there wasn't a pleasant suprise- they've been coming in dribs and drabs over the last year.

Secondly, after our group ditched 4e (which we struggled to like and grew to loathe- YMMV of course)- I've been experimenting with Savage Worlds, FATE, Barbarians of Lemuria and Apocalypse World, all of which now have a place in my gaming world. I've developed a taste for simpler, more flexible rulesets- D&D just isn't my go-to game like it was 10 years ago. Pity- it is in my mind the best edition, and the games I've run with it were universally enjoyed by all.

akaddk

2014-08-27, 04:55 AM

Merlin the Tuna

2014-08-27, 10:01 AM

SiuiS

2014-08-27, 06:20 PM

Oh, but they do in fact, and more often than not I had to argue with VtM players that it makes no sense to roll for routine tasks, especially since OWoD has this stupid fumble rule in which the more dice you roll, the less satisfying it becomes to make checks (since you can get as much 1s than 10s, it doesn't really matter if you roll 5 than 10 dice). Apparently you would feel like the more dice you had to roll, the riskier it was.

NWoD fixed this and has a rather fluid system. I love Changeling: The Lost.

This is true. Historically. OWoD started in basically the same way as D&D. They aren't really separate games, so much as separate campaigns, viscerally; two sides of one group, both claiming to have "superior" methods and such. I had even more fear of being screwed over by the DM in oWoD than in old D&D – but that's because all the literature available was very clear that you should maintain dominance by slapping your players with arbitrary stuff and rub their faces in your authority. :smallyuk:

Though, let's stay in topic: I don't think abstract thinking is beyond the grasp of a D&D player. I'm more inclined to think that people nowadays are less inclined generally to look beyond the numbers because it's more comfortable and beneficial for the situation.

Not abstract thought, abstract rules. Abstract thought is what makes dipping and character builds in 3e so viable.

But the inability to look at, for example, skill challenges and think "these are written clunky but basically solve all noncombat encounters forever, unless you read them utterly literally" is devastating. A bunch of 30 and 40 year olds who have lost plasticity and spend more time angrily rationalizing their preferences than evaluating value are deciding what the next generation of gamers should play without any thought for their preferences because said 30/40 year olds have more money and feel entitled to their values.

After a couple years of people fighting tooth and nail to ignore rational application of thought, it just burns you out.

My first impressions? I liked it, but wasn't overwhelmed. This was actually for a good reason- after over a year of watching the game evolve (and playtesting through two seperate, if short, campaigns), I already knew what I was getting. So there wasn't a pleasant suprise- they've been coming in dribs and drabs over the last year.

Secondly, after our group ditched 4e (which we struggled to like and grew to loathe- YMMV of course)- I've been experimenting with Savage Worlds, FATE, Barbarians of Lemuria and Apocalypse World, all of which now have a place in my gaming world. I've developed a taste for simpler, more flexible rulesets- D&D just isn't my go-to game like it was 10 years ago. Pity- it is in my mind the best edition, and the games I've run with it were universally enjoyed by all.

Oddly, I find 5e better than playtests led me to believe. Though it lament some losses, like the swashbuckler rogue going out the window, or martial dice and maneuvers.

And yeah. I find it a lot harder to force myself back into the at-times absurd simulation set up now that I've played other games.

My theory is that it's because D&D/d20 is sort of a DM-disempowering system compared to most others. That's largely the result of a lot of little quirks adding up (and a lot of them are totally understandable outgrowths from the game's wargaming roots) but within the context of Skills, it's the existence of stuff like DC 5 checks and (especially) the concept of Taking 10. The latter is a good idea in a vacuum, but it can make DM fiat retroactively look like a product of the rules.

Aye. That makes sense.

Mr.Moron

2014-08-27, 08:06 PM

Not abstract thought, abstract rules. Abstract thought is what makes dipping and character builds in 3e so viable.

But the inability to look at, for example, skill challenges and think "these are written clunky but basically solve all noncombat encounters forever, unless you read them utterly literally" is devastating. A bunch of 30 and 40 year olds who have lost plasticity and spend more time angrily rationalizing their preferences than evaluating value are deciding what the next generation of gamers should play without any thought for their preferences because said 30/40 year olds have more money and feel entitled to their values.

After a couple years of people fighting tooth and nail to ignore rational application of thought, it just burns you out.

I'm curious, freeform not withstanding what's the most abstracted ruleset you've played with? I'm having trouble unpacking your point here and some reference points may help.

SiuiS

2014-08-29, 01:50 AM

I'm curious, freeform not withstanding what's the most abstracted ruleset you've played with? I'm having trouble unpacking your point here and some reference points may help.

I don't think that will be a very helpful question to answer, unfortunately. I've played games as contrivedly complex as 1e AD&D with the simplicity of a well-run apocalypse world game. But then it's an argument of opinion whether it was because the system was understood well enough (and just streamlined in use, not rules structure), the system was streamlined well enough, or the system was just ignored.

My point is that when you fetishize a rule - an equation - over the principle it is supposed to show or the output it's supposed to generate, you miss the point. When you can only look at new things by contrasting them with old things and judging them by how much they are like the old things is only going to result in backwards data.

It's like someone who learned math with every equation involving the number five. So 4 x 5 = 20 is a good equation, but 2 x 10 = 20 is not, and heaven forbid we go with 2.5n = 20, because those equations are stupid and they don't even have a 5 in them!

... And all the while, no one remembers or cares that the entire point of the equation was to solve for a value, or at the very worst to arrive at a specific value of 20.

Take Kurald Galain's point. To paraphrase; "the system in which DC 10 cannot be hit by starting characters consistently is a bad system". But this ignores that DC 10 is meaningless; it is half the RNG, but what 10 means is plastic, not static. Achieving 10 tells you what number you rolled, but not what that number means. Nor does "consistently" get explained. Every ame can hit DC 10 one half of the time out the gate, or more. Why is that not sufficient? Why does not meeting an arbitrary number an arbitrary amount of the time matter?

Because in one edition, hitting the 50% mark on the RNG more than 4/5ths of the time was required to successfully compete against the base level of the game as laid out in the books. But that is not true of this game! Why are we using an incorrect and outdated measure for the new game? Why do people chuff and pshaw and rationalize away any logical direction?

Why get so upset that the rules aren't the exact same level of hardness and granularity as previous editions? Why look at a ruleset slightly more abstract than prior, and declare it a terrible plague that doesn't even work and isn't worth peeing on if all the books were on fire? Because we can look at other games with similar rules and similar conceits and see those rules do work, they are viable, and they won't ruin the game forever. So those arguments don't work.

Tehnar

2014-08-29, 06:25 AM

I don't think that will be a very helpful question to answer, unfortunately. I've played games as contrivedly complex as 1e AD&D with the simplicity of a well-run apocalypse world game. But then it's an argument of opinion whether it was because the system was understood well enough (and just streamlined in use, not rules structure), the system was streamlined well enough, or the system was just ignored.

My point is that when you fetishize a rule - an equation - over the principle it is supposed to show or the output it's supposed to generate, you miss the point. When you can only look at new things by contrasting them with old things and judging them by how much they are like the old things is only going to result in backwards data.

It's like someone who learned math with every equation involving the number five. So 4 x 5 = 20 is a good equation, but 2 x 10 = 20 is not, and heaven forbid we go with 2.5n = 20, because those equations are stupid and they don't even have a 5 in them!

... And all the while, no one remembers or cares that the entire point of the equation was to solve for a value, or at the very worst to arrive at a specific value of 20.

Take Kurald Galain's point. To paraphrase; "the system in which DC 10 cannot be hit by starting characters consistently is a bad system". But this ignores that DC 10 is meaningless; it is half the RNG, but what 10 means is plastic, not static. Achieving 10 tells you what number you rolled, but not what that number means. Nor does "consistently" get explained. Every ame can hit DC 10 one half of the time out the gate, or more. Why is that not sufficient? Why does not meeting an arbitrary number an arbitrary amount of the time matter?

Because in one edition, hitting the 50% mark on the RNG more than 4/5ths of the time was required to successfully compete against the base level of the game as laid out in the books. But that is not true of this game! Why are we using an incorrect and outdated measure for the new game? Why do people chuff and pshaw and rationalize away any logical direction?

Why get so upset that the rules aren't the exact same level of hardness and granularity as previous editions? Why look at a ruleset slightly more abstract than prior, and declare it a terrible plague that doesn't even work and isn't worth peeing on if all the books were on fire? Because we can look at other games with similar rules and similar conceits and see those rules do work, they are viable, and they won't ruin the game forever. So those arguments don't work.

Hitting a DC 10 check reliably makes your character feel heroic. That he can reliably accomplish something random untrained people can't. But that is basically 5e in a nutshell; your lvl 1 to 5 experience in ADnD 2nd ed, 3.5 or the heroic tier in 4e is stretched out over 20 levels.

Now it doesn't matter what you define as a easy task. If a untrained, not talented character (or NPC) is often better at a task then a specialized, talented PC that player no longer feels like their specialization matters. It creates a disconnect between game mechanincs and player expectations. Your expectations are that a trained character is much better then a untrained one. The mechanics don't deliver.

Tell me, how would you represent a specialist in 5e, so that the mechanics are in accord with expectations of the fantasy heroes can do?

SaintRidley

2014-08-29, 09:38 AM

If it's really not too difficult and you have a specialist, passive check - and they just breeze through the easy and medium (up to DC 15). If it's more difficult, being a specialist likely means they have advantage. The specialist will have proficiency and probably a high ability mod to the check, so likely +5 at level 1.

And it works. For really hard things, I have resources available to make me more likely to turn out good work in my specialty. And as a specialist in my field, I simply have a great deal of knowledge to bring to bear on a lot of things. My friends and colleagues who don't share my specialization are competent and trained, but they aren't specialists. They don't simply just know. They struggle with it, even things that seem trivially easy. And I struggle with things that seem trivially easy to them because of their specialization.

If I'm representing a U.S. Civil War scholar in 5e, she's going to have a high (at least +3) Int, a proficiency bonus in history (we'll just say she's level 1, so +2), and access to a great deal of archival material and scholarly work (advantage). In questions of easy to moderate difficulty, she's just going to know. Give her a passive check on those. If it's harder, she'll think about it (roll), maybe research it a bit more (the higher roll from advantage) and more often than not she will return a pretty good answer.

Ask her about the English Civil War, though, and her intelligence and training in history only go so far. Easy stuff isn't that hard, but questions a scholar of the English Civil War might answer in his sleep, she struggles with.

Edit - A preeminent scholar in the field might have maxed out Int and be around level 13 - they're answering most of the hard questions in their sleep.

Stubbazubba

2014-08-29, 04:25 PM

Must FATE, world of darkness, and apocalypse'world don't have these issues. Why do these problems with circular logic and lacking a rational system of application only come up in D&D?

I suspect it's because only D&D players think that rational thought cannot be abstract.

Vagueness =/= abstract. Dumping everything into a gray area of DM discretion is not an abstract approach, it is a vague one. Vagueness is bad for rules. It generates arguments. Ask any lawyer.

No, I find it strange that we are wedded to a method of attempt, and not to any actual results or desire to achieve them. This is obsessive-compulsive, more invested in the proper rituals than in the outcome. The reason D&D can't have a game engine that gives people the outcome they want (and thus a consistent one) is because nobody gives a gosh darn about outcomes.

I agree; D&D can't decide on an outcome because there is too wide a range of outcomes in its fan base to please them all. If it decides on one, it'll be 4e all over again, the segments of the player base their design did not cater to will defect en masse to a competitor's product. So you're right in that D&D itself is focused on method and not results. It wants to keep reproducing the same old stuff and having us pay for it over and over again, because it has backed itself into that corner. No one here is arguing that "doing things the way a previous edition did" is better simply for being the way a previous edition did. There are reasons, you're just not grasping them, and choosing to latch onto the surface appearance only.

It's maddening. So many good things have happened in the last, oh, three decades? As far as gaming and rules design, but to hear people talk about this specific intellectual property, none of the other games ever devised is as good and can't be used in, on or near a D&D table.

Do we moan and complain about D&D less than other games? No, we trot out its problems far, far more than any other game. I have no idea where you're getting this delusion that we're all rallying around D&D to protect it from the bad influence of lesser games.

Heaven forbid context should matter, that's hand waving! Strike from the record the idea that only worthy antagonists should be able to challenge players, that's Magical tea Party jackassery! Ignore that it works in almost every agile application ever, and ignore that following the rote formula for D&D is so destined for failure that we have coined a term strictly to define these D20 heartbreakers.

Who decides what's worthy and what's not? Someone has to make that decision. Is it so wrong to say I'd like a CR system to decide that instead of a first-time DM?

None of that matters, because a solid abstract framework which can be hacked to handle different loads and different grain is trying to be all things to all people, and that's just nonsense.

You don't know what abstract means if you think "DM decides" is a solid abstract framework. FATE is much closer to a solid abstract framework, but nothing you have said convinces me that you understand the difference between abstract and vague.

Take Kurald Galain's point. To paraphrase; "the system in which DC 10 cannot be hit by starting characters consistently is a bad system". But this ignores that DC 10 is meaningless; it is half the RNG, but what 10 means is plastic, not static. Achieving 10 tells you what number you rolled, but not what that number means. Nor does "consistently" get explained. Every ame can hit DC 10 one half of the time out the gate, or more. Why is that not sufficient? Why does not meeting an arbitrary number an arbitrary amount of the time matter?

Because in one edition, hitting the 50% mark on the RNG more than 4/5ths of the time was required to successfully compete against the base level of the game as laid out in the books. But that is not true of this game! Why are we using an incorrect and outdated measure for the new game? Why do people chuff and pshaw and rationalize away any logical direction?

You'll have to forgive our skepticism, when the game itself calls the 50% mark Easy. And offers few, if any, guidelines to the contrary. Since most difficulties are to be eye-balled by the DM, we can't predict what we'll be expected to do. There aren't examples in the book. There are published adventures which seem to do a better job, but how much of the time do we play published adventures? No, the guidelines for the DM are what matter, and right now, few characters feel very confident about making it through Medium difficulty challenges. Why does that sound like a good thing to you?

Why get so upset that the rules aren't the exact same level of hardness and granularity as previous editions? Why look at a ruleset slightly more abstract than prior, and declare it a terrible plague that doesn't even work and isn't worth peeing on if all the books were on fire? Because we can look at other games with similar rules and similar conceits and see those rules do work, they are viable, and they won't ruin the game forever. So those arguments don't work.

Because 5e doesn't actually learn from those abstract games, it just says, "Huh, people want less rules. Guess we can just dump every decision onto the DM, then." Again, you're running into this wall where you think abstractness = vagueness. Let's disabuse you of that notion:

The difference between vague and abstract is that when you're being abstract you can drill down to a level of detail appropriate to answer a question. When you're vague, you can only wave your hands and deflect the question.

The question presented to the DM is this: Should I call for a roll to determine if this PC in these circumstances can do this thing, or should I just decide yes/no? A vague response is circular, like "Well, if it seems like something they should roll for to you, then you're the boss and that must be right." An abstract way of looking at it would be more like "Here is what this PC can generally do without even rolling. Here is what this PC can generally roll for. Here is what this PC can generally not do even if he rolls a 20. Does this answer the question?" And if it's still not clear, then we have a deeper level, like, "Characters who are Proficient in X can roll for an X challenge of Y difficulty. Characters can spend a Hero Point to make a roll on a challenge beyond their normal skill level." X and Y aren't necessarily numbers, they can just be categories. But there's an actual decision-making process there. The vague answer is just telling DMs to decide based on heaven knows what.

Look at FATE: When the GM wants to Compel one of your Aspects, she can't just declare it done. There's a bartering process over the potential Complication, and then the player gets the chance to choose the Complication + FATE Point or pay a FATE Point to avoid it. There are clear inputs and a clear decision-making process, with only part of the decision resting on discretion (the negotiation), and that discretion is not unilateral, it's negotiated. This is what abstract processes look like. D&D 5e does not resemble this process in any meaningful way.

Abstract rules are all well and fine, and not everything needs to go to the dice, but right now 5e isn't offering abstract rules, it's offering vague ones that people think are abstract. Abstract rules approximate the concrete rules they are replacing, but do so without needless gradation of detail, like collapsing skills into categories instead of numerical scales as I did above. Vague rules, on the other hand, are indeterminate and unpredictable.

Concrete rules would be D&D 4e's combat grid; precise distances and the shape of objects and the path we take to get from point A to point B matter. Theater of the Mind play, where all those rules are still being used but you can't see any of it is vague; it's near impossible to keep track of all the necessary information and most of it just ends up ignored. I specifically tried to abstract the combat grid in the blog post in my sig so that you could play without a grid but not totally lose track of all sense of what mattered in the grid. That's abstraction.

HammerCrush

2014-08-29, 05:42 PM

Having my PHB at hand, and already played two sessions of the game, I think that the most awesome thing about 5ed is how fluid and modular it is, because it have a strong core mechanic (advantage/disadvantage). This makes everything else more or less optional, and easy to adapt (- You want flank rules? Easy. You want some class variation? Easy. You want to play on a tridimensional grid? Easy).

Also, as the game is easy to grasp, and because of the AC/DC (pun) cap, every character have a fair amount of chance of doing something usefull, even if its not optimized.

As for the storytelling aspect, the Background rules add something very nice to the character, both at gameplay and roleplay. This is true both for the new player and for the veteran. It's, at least, an incentive to write something down about your character, bringing even the most Power Gamer to think about his character besides his combat abilities.

And if you have only read the ruleset, I suggest you to take some time and play. It's incredible faster than the 3.x and 4th editions. You have 1 to 3 pages of sheet, and you can put everything down in it (unlike those previous editions). It feels more dramatic, more chalenging, more dynamic. 3.x combats were a lot tactical, and the math (oh, the math) was exausting. 4ed was played by waving a 8 pages sheet, and you actualy needed a program to do those sheets (lots of color ink cartridges wasted).

5ed is fun to play, easy to make characters, and have a lot of customizing options. The local bards at my city tell tales about a player that carried his 11th level AD&D Paladin sheet in his wallet, and sometimes droped by some friends house, as they were playing, and just get along. I see this happening in 5ed, and I think its great. After all, RPG is, first and foremost, about telling stories and having fun. So if the rules can be as simple or as complex as you want, that's great!

SiuiS

2014-08-30, 04:09 PM

Hitting a DC 10 check reliably makes your character feel heroic.

How? Why?

That he can reliably accomplish something random untrained people can't.

How does this relate to rolling 10+?

Now it doesn't matter what you define as a easy task.

How so? Why not?

If a untrained, not talented character (or NPC) is often better at a task then a specialized, talented PC

How? Why?

Tell me, how would you represent a specialist in 5e, so that the mechanics are in accord with expectations of the fantasy heroes can do?

Exactly as written.

Big thing here. Going to bold for emphasis.

Random NPCs do not best pcs because random. NPCs. Do. Not. Roll. It's not important that a random dude can pull something off. They are not a PC. They do not get to interact with the heroic character simulator portion of the rules. Joe dirt is not going to have a chance to beat Ragnar Thundershield in arm wrestling. Ragnar does not roll against the peasant. Ragnar wins.

Because the difficulty and consequence of Ragnar arm wrestling Peasants is not important to the heroic tales 5e is telling or emulating or simulating, however you prefer.

If you're running 5e and a random peasant beats your wizard by rolling a 20 on a knowledge check, that's as stupid as having a headless Orc stay alive after a Vorpal attack because Vorpal doesn't specify it drops HP to zero. That's you misusing the rules. That is trying to saw a board with Ahmed – wrong tool, wrog application.

Vagueness =/= abstract. Dumping everything into a gray area of DM discretion is not an abstract approach, it is a vague one. Vagueness is bad for rules. It generates arguments. Ask any lawyer.

That's a fair point.

Do we moan and complain about D&D less than other games? No, we trot out its problems far, far more than any other game. I have no idea where you're getting this delusion that we're all rallying around D&D to protect it from the bad influence of lesser games.

I don't think anyone is protecting D&D. I do think they are protecting the purity of their specific brand of elf game.

Who decides what's worthy and what's not? Someone has to make that decision. Is it so wrong to say I'd like a CR system to decide that instead of a first-time DM?

Kind of, yes. A DM who screws up does do despite the clear CR system. The CR system doesn't work. Why have it? Game got along just fine before it.

Because 5e doesn't actually learn from those abstract games, it just says, "Huh, people want less rules. Guess we can just dump every decision onto the DM, then."

I actually believe that's a language choice made to try and do new things but please old players. Couching the new in the old. The result is a wish wash that pleases Nopony, so I would rather they told one group - old or new - to flick off, myself, but what can you do?

Tehnar

2014-08-31, 07:38 AM

How? Why?

How does this relate to rolling 10+?

How so? Why not?

How? Why?

Exactly as written.

Big thing here. Going to bold for emphasis.

Random NPCs do not best pcs because random. NPCs. Do. Not. Roll. It's not important that a random dude can pull something off. They are not a PC. They do not get to interact with the heroic character simulator portion of the rules. Joe dirt is not going to have a chance to beat Ragnar Thundershield in arm wrestling. Ragnar does not roll against the peasant. Ragnar wins.

Because the difficulty and consequence of Ragnar arm wrestling Peasants is not important to the heroic tales 5e is telling or emulating or simulating, however you prefer.

If you're running 5e and a random peasant beats your wizard by rolling a 20 on a knowledge check, that's as stupid as having a headless Orc stay alive after a Vorpal attack because Vorpal doesn't specify it drops HP to zero. That's you misusing the rules. That is trying to saw a board with Ahmed – wrong tool, wrog application.

What you don't seem to understand is that random npc peasants are a part of the game, same as any other npc, like goblins or tavern keepers or captains of the guard. They interact with pc's.

The DM handwaving PC autosuccess is not a mechanic. Saying Ragnar wins against peasants wrestling is bad because its a absolute and dependent on DM judgement. What happens when the said peasants, after losing a arm wrestling competition to Ragnar via DM fiat are now trying to wrestle Ragnar to stop him from getting to the assassin in time to save the tavernkeeper. The same checks and the same modifiers are involved in either case. It doesn't have to be peasants, it can be any NPC with the same modifier to the check.

Do you roll in that circumstance, or do you fiat? What happens if its not Ragnar they are grappling, but a PC wizard with 10 STR? My point is: where are the guidelines (or rules) that tell the DM when to fiat stuff and when to roll? Or is everything dumped on the DM's shoulders, thus making the job all that harder for him?

DM fiat is by definition railroading. Rather then allowing PC and NPC stats decide the outcome of a action, the DM makes the choice what happens, he is guiding the story where he wants it to go. Now a little fiat from time to time is not a bad thing, but it is bad when the DM has to do it every session so the basic resolution system works.

So you are left with players whose character actions are not determined by dice or stats, but by DM fiat. In order to know how their character will do at a task they have to have the same view of their character as the DM does? That is incredibly hard to pull off, even in long term groups of experienced players. I know I have not been able to do that and I play with the same people on average once a week for over 10 years.

So why would it be so bad to have mechanics that allow autosuccess at certain tasks for certain characters without and DM fiat? If Ragnar should auto succeed against commoners, why don't the mechanics support that? The DM then doesn't have to make the decision, and the player then feels his character is good at doing something he invested character resources in?

Jacob.Tyr

2014-08-31, 08:00 AM

DM fiat is by definition railroading. Rather then allowing PC and NPC stats decide the outcome of a action, the DM makes the choice what happens, he is guiding the story where he wants it to go. Now a little fiat from time to time is not a bad thing, but it is bad when the DM has to do it every session so the basic resolution system works.

I think in a situation where the DM rules Ragnar can beat a dirt-farmer in arm wrestling, it is probably exclusively because of stats. In this sort of situation, just comparing strength is probably the best way to go about it. It isn't some subversion of the grappling rules, because arm wrestling isn't a mess of limbs with imperfect awareness and testing for openings. Everyone involved in the contest is aware that A) It is happening, B) Where force is going to be applied, C) When it is going to be applied, D) That it is going to be applied, E) They are in the same position as their opponent. This is akin to a situation where you're testing which character knows more languages, the Wizard or the farmhand who was kicked in the head as a child. One of them just knows more languages, it isn't a contest. This is, again, exclusively a comparison of stats. You don't roll a STR check to see if you can carry your max load, that is just how strong you are.

If instead of some random peasant it's actually a peasant with a STR score equivalent to Ragnar, then sure roll some dice if you really need a winner.

Mr.Moron

2014-08-31, 08:20 AM

Random NPCs do not best pcs because random. NPCs. Do. Not. Roll. It's not important that a random dude can pull something off. They are not a PC. They do not get to interact with the heroic character simulator portion of the rules. Joe dirt is not going to have a chance to beat Ragnar Thundershield in arm wrestling. Ragnar does not roll against the peasant. Ragnar wins.

Because the difficulty and consequence of Ragnar arm wrestling Peasants is not important to the heroic tales 5e is telling or emulating or simulating, however you prefer.

If you're running 5e and a random peasant beats your wizard by rolling a 20 on a knowledge check, that's as stupid as having a headless Orc stay alive after a Vorpal attack because Vorpal doesn't specify it drops HP to zero. That's you misusing the rules. That is trying to saw a board with Ahmed – wrong tool, wrog application.

You're speaking to a stylistic choice as though it was some kind objective truth here. NPCs are elements in the game universe as any other. Nothing about NPCs being able to beat a PC at arm-wrestling is out of tone with a heroic game more than someone serving them a meal they dislike or there being a gap slightly longer than the distance they can jump on a die roll of 9.

In most cases it's inapproriate for an NPC to come up and nuke the BBEG instantly, regardless of your games style. In most cases for most styles if a PC is going around challenging random people to arm wrestling it's probably not at all off-tone for them to have a chance to lose, particularly if they're trying to get something out of it.

(It's also not off-tone to simply have the PC win, if there are no stakes, they aren't being a jerk and that'd be the more entertaining of the two outcomes)

I know I'd probably do something to allow the PC to apply their profiency bonus to give them narrative edge-up on the NPC but that depends on the situation.

Tehnar

2014-08-31, 09:23 AM

I think in a situation where the DM rules Ragnar can beat a dirt-farmer in arm wrestling, it is probably exclusively because of stats. In this sort of situation, just comparing strength is probably the best way to go about it. It isn't some subversion of the grappling rules, because arm wrestling isn't a mess of limbs with imperfect awareness and testing for openings. Everyone involved in the contest is aware that A) It is happening, B) Where force is going to be applied, C) When it is going to be applied, D) That it is going to be applied, E) They are in the same position as their opponent. This is akin to a situation where you're testing which character knows more languages, the Wizard or the farmhand who was kicked in the head as a child. One of them just knows more languages, it isn't a contest. This is, again, exclusively a comparison of stats. You don't roll a STR check to see if you can carry your max load, that is just how strong you are.

If instead of some random peasant it's actually a peasant with a STR score equivalent to Ragnar, then sure roll some dice if you really need a winner.

The thing there is no guideline for things like that. No rule saying that if your STR exceeds a NPC STR by X you automatically succeed on opposed STR checks. My question is why would Ragnar (lets give him 18 STR) auto succeed against peasants (STR 10) but not auto succeed against goblins (STR 8), guardsmen(STR 12) or his wizard buddy (STR 8)?

Or why would Ragnar have advantage against any of them aside from that the DM decides Ragnar shoul have advantage to his roll?

Jacob.Tyr

2014-08-31, 09:28 AM

The thing there is no guideline for things like that. No rule saying that if your STR exceeds a NPC STR by X you automatically succeed on opposed STR checks. My question is why would Ragnar (lets give him 18 STR) auto succeed against peasants (STR 10) but not auto succeed against goblins (STR 8), guardsmen(STR 12) or his wizard buddy (STR 8)?

If they're arm wrestling to see who is stronger, then Ragnar wins against all of them because his STR stat is higher, and making this into a contest is stupid? Grappling isn't just trying to see who is stronger, that isn't how it works. It is closer to chess than it is to a foot race.

cobaltstarfire

2014-08-31, 10:08 AM

If they're arm wrestling to see who is stronger, then Ragnar wins against all of them because his STR stat is higher, and making this into a contest is stupid? Grappling isn't just trying to see who is stronger, that isn't how it works. It is closer to chess than it is to a foot race.

This right here.

The only time I could see doing a contest for something like this is if they are close (like if Ragnor had an 18, and the opponent has somewhere in the range of 17-19) People have good days and off days. Sometimes the opponent just has better technique.

Doesn't matter if it's vs an NPC, a PC, or an Enemy. If there is an overwhelming disparity in their scores, I'm probably going to give the win to whoever has the higher score rather than taking the time to roll.

Maybe that's a matter of style I don't know, I'd do it that way because that's what makes the most sense to me as far as applying the rule. (It's the same in 3.5, if someone can't possibly beat a DC, I'm not going to miraculously let them beat it just because they rolled a nat 20, maybe that makes me mean I don't know).

Only slightly related but arm wrestling isn't really a thing dependent souly on strength, a somewhat weaker person can win consistently if they know what they're doing while the stronger person doesn't. Sort of like ripping in half phone books, there's a trick to it.

Tehnar

2014-08-31, 10:56 AM

If they're arm wrestling to see who is stronger, then Ragnar wins against all of them because his STR stat is higher, and making this into a contest is stupid? Grappling isn't just trying to see who is stronger, that isn't how it works. It is closer to chess than it is to a foot race.

What I am saying is where do you decide is the breaking point? How do you decide, in any kind of contest or opposed test, when one side gets to roll and when they don't. Are there any other criteria other them dm fiat? I am not interested in houserules, but actual wotc rules or guidelines.

This right here.

The only time I could see doing a contest for something like this is if they are close (like if Ragnor had an 18, and the opponent has somewhere in the range of 17-19) People have good days and off days. Sometimes the opponent just has better technique.

Doesn't matter if it's vs an NPC, a PC, or an Enemy. If there is an overwhelming disparity in their scores, I'm probably going to give the win to whoever has the higher score rather than taking the time to roll.

Maybe that's a matter of style I don't know, I'd do it that way because that's what makes the most sense to me as far as applying the rule. (It's the same in 3.5, if someone can't possibly beat a DC, I'm not going to miraculously let them beat it just because they rolled a nat 20, maybe that makes me mean I don't know).
]

Again I am not against auto succeeding, I just want clear published criteria when that happens. Because otherwise dm fiat creates a disconnect between players.

cobaltstarfire

2014-08-31, 11:41 AM

Nagash

2014-08-31, 03:11 PM

The thing there is no guideline for things like that. No rule saying that if your STR exceeds a NPC STR by X you automatically succeed on opposed STR checks. My question is why would Ragnar (lets give him 18 STR) auto succeed against peasants (STR 10) but not auto succeed against goblins (STR 8), guardsmen(STR 12) or his wizard buddy (STR 8)?

Or why would Ragnar have advantage against any of them aside from that the DM decides Ragnar shoul have advantage to his roll?

Heres your guideline "your the DM, your always in control of all aspects of the game. You are always required to have commonsense and good judgement or no amount of rules and guidelines will save you from running a craptastic game"

There, done. 100% of the time apply commonsense and good judgement.

Tehnar

2014-08-31, 04:01 PM

To me the rules basically say "use your best judgement" that's good enough for me, I don't need rules that tell me "only roll if the opposing characters scores are within X points of each other"

Unless it's just something ridiculous or unfair, I also disagree on the point that DM fiat somehow creates a disconnect or issue with the players. I wouldn't even call it fiat because there's nothing arbitrary about the decision that someone with a noticeably higher str is going to beat the guy with the low strength.

Heres your guideline "your the DM, your always in control of all aspects of the game. You are always required to have commonsense and good judgement or no amount of rules and guidelines will save you from running a craptastic game"

There, done. 100% of the time apply commonsense and good judgement.

That might be good idea...if only common sense was common.

So when the DMs idea of common sense doesn't match the players ideas of common sense it can disrupt the session. These disruptions and constant houserules means that the DM has less time roleplaying NPCs, or devising monster strategies or providing descriptions of the environment.

Mr.Moron

2014-08-31, 04:54 PM

That might be good idea...if only common sense was common.

So when the DMs idea of common sense doesn't match the players ideas of common sense it can disrupt the session. These disruptions and constant houserules means that the DM has less time roleplaying NPCs, or devising monster strategies or providing descriptions of the environment.

Sounds like a mismatched group that shouldn't be playing together, at best. Plain disruptive players that have no ability to adapt or accept complications at worst.

Tehnar

2014-08-31, 05:09 PM

Sounds like a mismatched group that shouldn't be playing together.
Personally I play with the same group for over 10 years, and we play almost weekly. So even after over 400 sessions, we still have different ideas about what our characters can and can't do.

It is normal that different people don't have the same expectations of what a character is and can do. People have different subjective views on everything. Which is why you have arguments like can Superman pick up Thors hammer or whatever. It doesn't mean those people can't play together. The reason for that is because you have rules that establish a common ground between people.

When you have to fiat common a common occurrence that means you may have a problem.

Stubbazubba

2014-08-31, 05:35 PM

Heres your guideline "your the DM, your always in control of all aspects of the game. You are always required to have commonsense and good judgement or no amount of rules and guidelines will save you from running a craptastic game"

There, done. 100% of the time apply commonsense and good judgement.

So at what point do you stop applying common sense and apply the game's rules?

pwykersotz

2014-08-31, 05:50 PM

So at what point do you stop applying common sense and apply the game's rules?

Duh, when the DM tells you to. :smalltongue:

SiuiS

2014-09-01, 10:44 AM

What you don't seem to understand is that random npc peasants are a part of the game, same as any other npc, like goblins or tavern keepers or captains of the guard. They interact with pc's.

I understand that just fine. What you don't understand is how much of your baggage you are bringing. NPCs are part of the game, sure. But they do not need to be addressed in the exact same fashion as PCs. Not all NPCs are equal to or as important as.

Again, there are many games that do this successfully without a hint of problem. Why is it so weird in D&D? Why are D&D fans afraid this is just a bunch of house you're tea party elfgame nonsense that ruins things forever?

The DM handwaving PC autosuccess is not a mechanic.

Ah, no. Poor framing on your part. It is not hand waving success, it is deliberating the necessity for a roll. You don't roll dex to walk. You don't roll wis to enjoy poetry. You don't roll str when you lay out a lesser man in a contest, because it's neither all that up-in-the-air, not interesting should you fail.

You're speaking to a stylistic choice as though it was some kind objective truth here.

I'm speaking only of the rules on when to roll and why. It may be stylistic choice, but Next made the decision, not me. I'm just railing angrily against people who complain Rule A makes no sense because they don't like and this ignore Rule B, etc.

TheSethGrey

2014-09-01, 11:07 AM

Ah, no. Poor framing on your part. It is not hand waving success, it is deliberating the necessity for a roll. You don't roll dex to walk. You don't roll wis to enjoy poetry. You don't roll str when you lay out a lesser man in a contest, because it's neither all that up-in-the-air, not interesting should you fail.

I had a player who kept wanting to make dex checks for walking down stairs normally, after about two sessions of that I got so fed up with his desire to make a check for walking down stairs I had him make one just shut him up.

He rolled a 1, and promptly never asked to make a check like that again.

Stubbazubba

2014-09-02, 06:15 PM

I'm speaking only of the rules on when to roll and why. It may be stylistic choice, but Next made the decision, not me. I'm just railing angrily against people who complain Rule A makes no sense because they don't like and this ignore Rule B, etc.

And when, precisely, should we roll? You're not saying that all NPCs don't deserve to roll, and you're clearly not saying that all NPCs do deserve to roll, because that's the position you're against. Obviously there are some NPCs we should roll against, and some that we shouldn't. But where do we go from there? Where's the dividing line? Is there really a Rule B that actually acts like a rule?

My beef with it is not that there are some people you just succeed automatically against, but that there is no actual rubric for determining against whom you roll and against whom you don't. Everything just goes into the DM black box and out pops an answer. That's not a resolution system.

hawklost

2014-09-02, 06:37 PM

And when, precisely, should we roll? You're not saying that all NPCs don't deserve to roll, and you're clearly not saying that all NPCs do deserve to roll, because that's the position you're against. Obviously there are some NPCs we should roll against, and some that we shouldn't. But where do we go from there? Where's the dividing line? Is there really a Rule B that actually acts like a rule?

My beef with it is not that there are some people you just succeed automatically against, but that there is no actual rubric for determining against whom you roll and against whom you don't. Everything just goes into the DM black box and out pops an answer. That's not a resolution system.

You roll when your DM decides that it is relevent to the story. You seem to be having a great deal of problem with one of the most basic premises of DnD. If you cannot get your head around that part of it, then nothing anyone can say will satisfy you.

Also, you are demanding answers like "When should a DM decide to make rolls" without having the DMG out, so even if it was in there (which is might be) you are demanding answers now.

SiuiS

2014-09-02, 07:01 PM

I had a player who kept wanting to make dex checks for walking down stairs normally, after about two sessions of that I got so fed up with his desire to make a check for walking down stairs I had him make one just shut him up.

He rolled a 1, and promptly never asked to make a check like that again.

Ha!

I had a player try that sort of thing. He justified it as RP for his monk to exercise. Turns out he was throwing dice for useless checks, claiming failure to build trust, and trying to say he succeeded on important rolls using that trust. My "someone must be able to verify your dice" policy foiled that, luckily.

And when, precisely, should we roll? You're not saying that all NPCs don't deserve to roll, and you're clearly not saying that all NPCs do deserve to roll, because that's the position you're against. Obviously there are some NPCs we should roll against, and some that we shouldn't. But where do we go from there? Where's the dividing line? Is there really a Rule B that actually acts like a rule?

My beef with it is not that there are some people you just succeed automatically against, but that there is no actual rubric for determining against whom you roll and against whom you don't. Everything just goes into the DM black box and out pops an answer. That's not a resolution system.

Hawk lost covered the basics. I understand your beef, and I understand that D&D writers aren't going to be the best at non-D&D ideas and maybe write them poorly. But the game has always revolved around a human arbiter making rational decisions based on the fiction established. If it is really so hard for you to trust that your friend, that you are playing with, can make rational decisions based on the story you are telling together? Do you really think that without a hard and solid rule he will just say "well, there's no rule for it, so you can't roll and you can't just succeed, so..." Or something?

And my language is sort of mocking, but that's for effect. I really want to know. I just don't get the aversion to letting people you choose yourself act as people, requiring a machine or a math set to deliberate for you in all ways at all times.

Stubbazubba

2014-09-02, 08:17 PM

You roll when your DM decides that it is relevent to the story. You seem to be having a great deal of problem with one of the most basic premises of DnD. If you cannot get your head around that part of it, then nothing anyone can say will satisfy you.

Look, now I'm the DM. How do I, as the freaking DM, decide when to autofail my players on something they are really excited about rolling for? That can be a pretty sensitive decision to make, and there is no guidance, no criteria for this. It would really help if I could point to an actual framework where the game actually says no roll is called for, autofail. In the absence of that, it is 100% my opinion vs. theirs, but mine must be respected because I'm the DM, so go suck it, whiny players. That's not an acceptable table dynamic to me, but if you're into that, then fine, enjoy. The alternative is we sit there and haggle about it, and that's a waste of everyone's time, and often still leaves us without a resolution. The game doesn't help us build a consensus at all, it just says "DM wins, players lose."

The lack of clarity in when DMs should call for rolls and when they should not increases the meta-game "transaction cost" of every action, if you will. Whether it's by creating an uncomfortable table dynamic or by encouraging OOC arguments, the game is negatively impacted. A framework, even a narrow framework that disallows more than it allows, would avoid most of that by creating a consensus. Yes, problem players and problem DMs would still exist, and rules can't avoid that, but even in a perfectly functional group there will be disagreements, and in those instances, a framework that puts us in a reasonable direction, as opposed to just picking winners and losers, is an important consensus-building tool. Why would you not want to offer that?

Also, you are demanding answers like "When should a DM decide to make rolls" without having the DMG out, so even if it was in there (which is might be) you are demanding answers now.

Yes, because we are playing games now. You find it unreasonable that I want actual rules to play the game? I would be delighted if the DMG actually addresses it, but that's not what most people here are even saying; SiuiS is saying DM's don't need any guidance on how to use their absolute authority, which I find ridiculous and, frankly, objectionable.

Hawk lost covered the basics. I understand your beef, and I understand that D&D writers aren't going to be the best at non-D&D ideas and maybe write them poorly. But the game has always revolved around a human arbiter making rational decisions based on the fiction established. If it is really so hard for you to trust that your friend, that you are playing with, can make rational decisions based on the story you are telling together? Do you really think that without a hard and solid rule he will just say "well, there's no rule for it, so you can't roll and you can't just succeed, so..." Or something?

And my language is sort of mocking, but that's for effect. I really want to know. I just don't get the aversion to letting people you choose yourself act as people, requiring a machine or a math set to deliberate for you in all ways at all times.

If my friend can do it better than the rules, then we can set aside the rules and go with that. Every table has their house rules, that's not a problem. But the reverse, where your friend doesn't know what he's doing and there are no rules to catch him, is a problem.

He doesn't even need to do a bad job, though: even if he's my friend, I disagree with my friends about all kinds of things, even and especially in games. We all conceive of the fiction a bit differently, and those unique visions will most likely clash at some point. The game is supposed to help you resolve that, not just tell you "the one behind the screen always wins, unless he deigns to let you win this time."

If I trust my friend to resolve everything in the game in a way that I would find satisfying and fun (and this is also true for everyone at the table), I wouldn't need to pay $75 for rule books, would I?

Furthermore, most of the gaming I do is online, or through local groups, usually with a lot of people I don't know. I don't have the luxury of playing multi-year campaigns with the same people throughout. Your entire premise breaks down when a group of strangers is playing online, through a local club, or at a convention. I don't think D&D is really intended for so narrow an audience.

I would feel much more confident about joining a pick-up game if I knew there was some predictability to when a DM would call/not call for rolls.

I've laid out my reasons for wanting more guidance on the DM side for when to call for rolls, now tell me why we're better off without it.

Tehnar

2014-09-04, 07:16 AM

I understand that just fine. What you don't understand is how much of your baggage you are bringing. NPCs are part of the game, sure. But they do not need to be addressed in the exact same fashion as PCs. Not all NPCs are equal to or as important as.

Again, there are many games that do this successfully without a hint of problem. Why is it so weird in D&D? Why are D&D fans afraid this is just a bunch of house you're tea party elfgame nonsense that ruins things forever?

Stubbazubba covered my response to this very well, so I won't repeat anything.

Ah, no. Poor framing on your part. It is not hand waving success, it is deliberating the necessity for a roll. You don't roll dex to walk. You don't roll wis to enjoy poetry. You don't roll str when you lay out a lesser man in a contest, because it's neither all that up-in-the-air, not interesting should you fail.

Rolling for a strength competition (like grappling) is something that happens in the game and is supported by the rules. It is in no way equivalent to rolling to walk on a normal floor. Don't try to shift the goalposts. Even if a previous edition had a bad rule (and in this case it does not), that does not excuse 5e from having bad rules.

Going back to your point about laying out a lesser man in a contest. To debunk a few things:

1) it's neither all that up-in-the-air: if you are going to roll it, the lesser man has a significant chance of success. This has been proven many times over, I don't think I have to go into the math again.

2) not interesting should you fail: if the PC loses, it can be interesting, depending on the situation. Lets posit a situation. The PC is trying to save a innkeeper from a assassin. A commoner hireling tries to prevent the PC by grappling him. Loss on the opposed grapple check has serious consequences, as the PC might not get to the innkeeper in time to save him. So I don't think that grappling with commoners is a prior uninteresting.

Additionally, you are forcing extra work on the DM by forcing him to make rulings about auto success or auto failure. Mechanics are there so when a DM says the peasant grapples you to prevent you from getting to the assassin, and the player says "no he doesn't, Ragnar is too strong for peasants" you can resolve the situation without making anyone feel like their contribution to the story doesn't matter.

Sir_Leorik

2014-09-04, 08:05 AM

Look, now I'm the DM. How do I, as the freaking DM, decide when to autofail my players on something they are really excited about rolling for?

I recommend rereading Chapter 7 of the PHB. It will answer most of your questions. There is guidance, you just need to realize that if the task is routine, don't call for a roll. If the PC is walking to the market, he shouldn't roll dice. If the PC is tumbling across broken flagstones in a castle to avoid being hit by falling masonry, call for either a Dexterity Saving Throw, or a Dexterity (Acrobatics) check. You set the DC based on the guidelines in chapter 7. There is no "auto-failing" in 5E, only checks that are Nearly Impossible. On page 174 in the PHB, the DC for Nearly Impossible is set at 30. If you feel 30 is too low, raise it to 35. Don't tell your players they can't do something. Instead, ask what they want to do, determine if there is an Ability check that's appropriate (with a corresponding skill) and ask them to roll dice. Set the Difficulty as high as you deem reasonable.

The lack of clarity in when DMs should call for rolls and when they should not increases the meta-game "transaction cost" of every action, if you will. Whether it's by creating an uncomfortable table dynamic or by encouraging OOC arguments, the game is negatively impacted. A framework, even a narrow framework that disallows more than it allows, would avoid most of that by creating a consensus. Yes, problem players and problem DMs would still exist, and rules can't avoid that, but even in a perfectly functional group there will be disagreements, and in those instances, a framework that puts us in a reasonable direction, as opposed to just picking winners and losers, is an important consensus-building tool. Why would you not want to offer that?

There is clarity there. Reread page 6 of the PHB. The DM describes the environment. The players describe what they want to do. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions. Clarity in three sentences. The DM in 5E is not the antagonist of the players. He's their guide to a world of adventure. He sets up the scenario, they explore the scenario, and the DM provides results in a neutral manner.

The consensus is there. There are no winners or losers, only a group of friends (or in some cases strangers at a game store or convention) gathered together to play a game they enjoy.

Yes, because we are playing games now. You find it unreasonable that I want actual rules to play the game? I would be delighted if the DMG actually addresses it, but that's not what most people here are even saying; SiuiS is saying DM's don't need any guidance on how to use their absolute authority, which I find ridiculous and, frankly, objectionable.

I don't think that's what SiuiS said (though she is free to correct me). In any event, I think the PHB provides guidance in this regard, mostly in chapters 7 and 8, plus combat rules in 9, and spellcasting in 10. Seriously, reread chapter 7. It has the core rules of the game there, including how the DM should set Ability Check and Saving Throw DCs.

If my friend can do it better than the rules, then we can set aside the rules and go with that. Every table has their house rules, that's not a problem. But the reverse, where your friend doesn't know what he's doing and there are no rules to catch him, is a problem.

He doesn't even need to do a bad job, though: even if he's my friend, I disagree with my friends about all kinds of things, even and especially in games. We all conceive of the fiction a bit differently, and those unique visions will most likely clash at some point. The game is supposed to help you resolve that, not just tell you "the one behind the screen always wins, unless he deigns to let you win this time."

If I trust my friend to resolve everything in the game in a way that I would find satisfying and fun (and this is also true for everyone at the table), I wouldn't need to pay $75 for rule books, would I?

Furthermore, most of the gaming I do is online, or through local groups, usually with a lot of people I don't know. I don't have the luxury of playing multi-year campaigns with the same people throughout. Your entire premise breaks down when a group of strangers is playing online, through a local club, or at a convention. I don't think D&D is really intended for so narrow an audience.

I would feel much more confident about joining a pick-up game if I knew there was some predictability to when a DM would call/not call for rolls.

I've laid out my reasons for wanting more guidance on the DM side for when to call for rolls, now tell me why we're better off without it.

My suggestion is to a) reread chapter 7 of the PHB, and b) wait for the DMG to come out. If you're not satisfied by then, maybe 5E isn't the right edition of D&D for you.

Kurald Galain

2014-09-04, 08:37 AM

There is no "auto-failing" in 5E, only checks that are Nearly Impossible. On page 174 in the PHB, the DC for Nearly Impossible is set at 30. If you feel 30 is too low, raise it to 35.

That's just obfuscating matters from your players, though. DC 30 is an autofail for any character below level 13, as well as for any task that doesn't relate to your primary ability score. Except rogues, of course.

So yes, 5E certainly does have automatic failure. Aside from that, saying "yes but you'll only have a 5% or 10% chance" is really what most players would consider "telling your players they can't do something". "Yes but" tends to be a euphemism for "no", really.

Sir_Leorik

2014-09-04, 08:45 AM

That's just obfuscating matters from your players, though. DC 30 is an autofail for any character below level 13, as well as for any task that doesn't relate to your primary ability score. Except rogues, of course.

So yes, 5E certainly does have automatic failure. Aside from that, saying "yes but you'll only have a 5% or 10% chance" is really what most players would consider "telling your players they can't do something". "Yes but" tends to be a euphemism for "no", really.

But isn't that a better way to DM? If the players want to do something Nearly Impossible, and they are 1st level PCs, isn't it better to let them roll, fail, and have interesting consequences of that failure, than to outright say "No!"?

Kurald Galain

2014-09-04, 09:04 AM

But isn't that a better way to DM? If the players want to do something Nearly Impossible, and they are 1st level PCs, isn't it better to let them roll, fail, and have interesting consequences of that failure, than to outright say "No!"?

I'm not seeing a meaningful difference between "DM Veto" and "DM Veto and you get to roll a die which is completely ignored". Why would the second be better?

Sir_Leorik

2014-09-04, 09:19 AM

I'm not seeing a meaningful difference between "DM Veto" and "DM Veto and you get to roll a die which is completely ignored". Why would the second be better?

Because the former is the DM saying a flat out "No!", while the latter is the DM accommodating his players, even though he knows they can't pull off what they want to.

For example, a Bard is wrongfully imprisoned (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0387.html) and needs to escape. He tries to make Persuasion checks to get the guards to release him, but they're under orders to keep the Bard locked up. The DM could say "The guards ignore your pleas," or the DM could say "Make a speech and then make a Charisma (Persuasion) roll." The DM sets the DC at 30, since guards don't let prisoners out just because they say please. The Bard tells the guards about how his friend is in terrible danger, and he needs to warn her about his Evil twin, and the DM calls for a roll. The Bard gets a 24, impressive but not impressive enough. The guards look at each other and say "Evil twin? Yeah right!". They walk away laughing. Meanwhile, the Half-Orc thug in the next cell is singing Spice Girls songs. The Bard asks the DM if he can persuade the thug to help him, so the DM lets the Bard try to Persuade the Half-Orc. The Half-Orc doesn't like being in prison either, so the DC is Easy. The Bard rolls a 19, and convinces the thug to try breaking the bars. The thug succeeds, and the Bard and the Half-Orc are off on a whirlwind adventure!

The trick is not telling the players what the DC is. Sometimes they can figure it out themselves, other times they can't, but so long as you let them take an action (even one that's Nearly Impossible) you're being a better DM (IMO) than if you just said no.

Kurald Galain

2014-09-04, 09:38 AM

Because the former is the DM saying a flat out "No!", while the latter is the DM accommodating his players, even though he knows they can't pull off what they want to.

For example, a Bard is wrongfully imprisoned (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0387.html) and needs to escape. He tries to make Persuasion checks to get the guards to release him, but they're under orders to keep the Bard locked up. The DM could say "The guards ignore your pleas," or the DM could say "Make a speech and then make a Charisma (Persuasion) roll." The DM sets the DC at 30, since guards don't let prisoners out just because they say please.

That means that the DM has decided in advance that, regardless of what speech the player makes, the guards are not going to be persuaded anyway (because e.g. a fighter or wizard or cleric, regardless of level or training or circumstances, will never be able to make a DC 30 check). That's basically the opposite of accomodating.

Accomodating would mean that the player's actions have some positive effect, even if it wasn't what the player intended. That's not what's happening in your example. And indeed, the player decides "this will never work" and tries something else. That's not because the DM is accomodating anything, but that's because the player is thinking of other solutions.

Sir_Leorik

2014-09-04, 09:49 AM

Kurald Galain

2014-09-04, 09:59 AM

My point is that if the DM wants to encourage the players to look for other solutions, it's better to let them try zany ones that can't work, but work that into the narrative of the game. Saying a flat "no" is not always the best idea. I'm not talking about railroading the PCs, I'm talking about letting their ideas play out.

Sure, I agree with that, I just don't see how letting the player make a meaningless roll adds anything to the situation. Indeed, if the player rolls high it may lead to an argument at the table.

Personally I would never ask for a check on this situation. I would let the player make his speech, and have the guards respond positively if (1) the player had a persuasive argument AND (2) the character had a good charisma score. I find that more accomodating :smallbiggrin:

hawklost

2014-09-04, 10:05 AM

That means that the DM has decided in advance that, regardless of what speech the player makes, the guards are not going to be persuaded anyway (because e.g. a fighter or wizard or cleric, regardless of level or training or circumstances, will never be able to make a DC 30 check). That's basically the opposite of accomodating.

Accomodating would mean that the player's actions have some positive effect, even if it wasn't what the player intended. That's not what's happening in your example. And indeed, the player decides "this will never work" and tries something else. That's not because the DM is accomodating anything, but that's because the player is thinking of other solutions.

Yes, a DM Decides in Advance how challenging something is. In the example, the DM decided these were professional guards and would not be persuaded by anything but an out of the world persuasion check (or possibly intimidation or Deception if the player had tried those). Sure, the lvl 1 bard cannot succeed at it, but say that as a lvl 20 bard now in the exact same jail with those exact same guards, he has a chance to be so convincing that he can get them to let him out. So the DM doesn't just arbitrarily change the DC just because the PC got higher levels he should decide when it comes up the first time how hard something is.

And actually, the DM could have had a lower DC for a more beneficial result (but not letting the player out). In this specific case, the DM might have had a DC 24 (or lower) check to get the guards to leave the cell area, therefore allowing the story to be interesting in the sense of the bard talking with the thug without being overheard. He might not have specified a Persuasion check but just any kind of check that that interacts with the guards (intimidate might have made them decide to leave the room, Deception might have convinced them they heard something outside, Persuasion made it so your story you were telling them was funny enough for them to think you are harmless and walk out even though that was not your intention. A lower check below the special DC just means that the guards are annoyed at you and now sit there taunting you meaning you cannot convince the thug to help you at that time.

When a DM calls for a roll, he should have a DC in mind but he does not have to ever tell the player what the DC is, only that there is something (or multiple somethings) that a check is desired for.

EDIT: Also, it usually appears that if a PC cannot make a check and a roll they don't even bother roleplayer it. So if the DM just flat out says no, instead of the bard trying and giving a cool speech (even if he just says he does and doesn't actually act it out) you get a quiet sullen bard sitting in a cell. Which one sounds more interested in a narrative perspective?

Sir_Leorik

2014-09-04, 10:11 AM

EDIT: Also, it usually appears that if a PC cannot make a check and a roll they don't even bother roleplayer it. So if the DM just flat out says no, instead of the bard trying and giving a cool speech (even if he just says he does and doesn't actually act it out) you get a quiet sullen bard sitting in a cell. Which one sounds more interested in a narrative perspective?

Thanks hawklost, that's pretty much what I was trying to say. As a DM I prefer to let the players be active participants, and a sullen player might sulk or try to disrupt the game.

Kurald Galain

2014-09-04, 10:36 AM

EDIT: Also, it usually appears that if a PC cannot make a check and a roll they don't even bother roleplayer it.

I find the exact opposite: if you let players roll for social things, they stop roleplaying and instead of giving an actual speech, the bard's player would say "I've got 25 on my diplomacy check, is that enough?"

Regardless, if you have players who routinely go quiet and sullen when things don't immediately go their way, you really need to find better players.

hawklost

2014-09-04, 10:45 AM

I find the exact opposite: if you let players roll for social things, they stop roleplaying and instead of giving an actual speech, the bard's player would say "I've got 25 on my diplomacy check, is that enough?"

Regardless, if you have players who routinely go quiet and sullen when things don't immediately go their way, you really need to find better players.

I did not specify the player being sullen, I said the bard is sullen. If the player asks if he can convince the guards to let him out and I tell him no up front, he probably doesn't even have his character try it. Meaning he just sits their quietly doing nothing.

Its true that some players do not feel eloquent enough or intimidating enough to roleplay out what their character would do. A large amount of times that is because they are not as social as they are trying to player there character. In those cases they will just roll and ask if the roll is enough and for some people that is fine.

Note, if they rolled then their character made the speech, even if the player did not actually make a grand (or poor) speech their character did. In the narrative of the story, that is the important part.

Also, as a DM, I would tell them this (and not just for this situation but for any social interactive one). If they want to get Advantage (or possibly disadvantage if they say things truelly foolishly) on the roll they are attempting, they need to actually tell me what their character is saying by either saying it or giving a general idea of what they are saying. Then I give them the roll with adv/dis or nothing extra, but since I agreed to let them roll to try to do the interaction they will get one.

Instead, you seem to advocate saying "no" up front when they ask it, or telling them that they need to roleplay and then you will decide if a roll is allowed (implying that the players ability to say things dictates whether or not their character can get a roll even if their character is far more social then the player).

Sir_Leorik

2014-09-04, 10:48 AM

Kurald Galain

2014-09-04, 10:59 AM

I've seen a lot of different players over the years, and some of them will react negatively to being told "no you can't do this".

Sure. And some others will react negatively to being told to roll, and then realizing their roll doesn't actually matter because the DM has decided in advance that you can't do this regardless of what you roll.

Mr.Moron

2014-09-04, 11:00 AM

I've seen a lot of different players over the years, and some of them will react negatively to being told "no you can't do this".

Oh well. Sucks to be them I guess.

hawklost

2014-09-04, 11:06 AM

Sure. And some others will react negatively to being told to roll, and then realizing their roll doesn't actually matter because the DM has decided in advance that you can't do this regardless of what you roll.

Ahh, but see, there are levels of failure. Any good dm does have more than one effective DC for most social interactions especially.

DC 30 check to convince the King of Thieves to help you by giving you an item
Roll a 29 on a DC 30 check? yea, you didn't succeed in your goal but hey, you gave a good speech none the less! He laughs and gives you some hint about the item but won't help you, he doesn't seem to be against your getting it but he doesn't seem to want to just give it up.
Roll a 19 on the same DC check? Yea, you didn't succeed but at least the king listened to you before laughing you out of the hidden halls, you don't seem to have convinced him of anything, but hey, he isn't demanding your execution
Roll a 9 on the DC 30 check? Yea, You started out insulting him and before you could get to your request he demands you leave, seeming extremely pissed at your insults. You feel that he might be sending a 'message' to you in the form of some bruisers for your insults.

Person_Man

2014-09-04, 11:46 AM

RE: Persuasion

I make players roleplay all interactions with NPCs. When reasonably necessary, I call for the appropriate Skill checks, and will occasionally grant Advantage or Disadvantage based on the quality of their roleplaying and/or any other mitigating factors that might come into play.

If something is truly impossible (I try to convince the guard that he's really a fish!"), I just tell the PC that he fails and don't roll at all, just like I would to a player who attempts to fly by jumping really high with an Athletics check.

If something is highly unlikely to succeed but still within the realm of possibility ("Your best friend has secretly betrayed you!") I'll set a high but not impossible for the PCs to currently achieve DC.

It's not cheating or abusing the rules or destroying a plot to allow players to drive the plot through roleplaying. It's one of the best parts of the game, and its what sets apart games with DMs (who can listen to whatever the player says and react accordingly) from video games (which must be limited in PC/NPC interactions through dialogue trees).

Also, guards are typically part of a bureaucracy, and prisons are specifically designed to try and keep people in. So even if the Bard can convince the guards standing outside his cell to let him out, he also has to convince the guards at the cell block door, the guards at the door to the exit, the warden overlooking the prison yard, the guards at the prison fence gate, etc.

So if the bard can legitimately convince the first guard to open the door, then I'll allow it. But that's only the first step of many in his prison escape (unless he's in some small village somewhere), which should be really fun and interesting game...

SiuiS

2014-09-04, 12:44 PM

Rolling for a strength competition (like grappling) is something that happens in the game and is supported by the rules.

And when and why you roll – and when you don't and why – is also supported.

1) it's neither all that up-in-the-air: if you are going to roll it, the lesser man has a significant chance of success. This has been proven many times over, I don't think I have to go into the math again.

No. Non applicable math doesn't prove something. How two d20d unfold when rolled against each other says absolutely nothing about situations where two d20s are not supposed to be rolled against each other. When to apply these contests is part of the math.

2) not interesting should you fail: if the PC loses, it can be interesting, depending on the situation. Lets posit a situation.

How PC versus something the DM designed to be an obstacle unfolds says nothing about how PC versus background data should unfold. And that's what all these examples miss. If you make a commoner who has an exception to being a cardboard background prop, they're an exception. Barbarian arm wrestling Jebediah, strongest in the village? That's a contest. Jebediah pullin random people off the street until the dice fall unlucky and using that to say the math doesn't work? Not so much. This game is not a simulation. It does not need to be able to simulate a constant, stream of consciousness-like progression in real time. You don't get mad at Photoshop for not building web pages, why get mad at Next for not simulating physics?

Additionally, you are forcing extra work on the DM by forcing him to make rulings about auto success or auto failure.

If the difference between an intentional obstacle and a background silhouette is work for you, turn in your DM card and let someone who can handle it have your seat. There are actual complaints to be discussed. "I have to pay attention to my own ideas" is not one of them. The effort involved in this is so trivial that it proves nothing and isn't worth my time or yours.

Because the former is the DM saying a flat out "No!", while the latter is the DM accommodating his players, even though he knows they can't pull off what they want to.

Bad framing. Difficulty which exists independent of the players is one thing, but arbitrarily high numbers so you can tell them no and defer responsibility to the system is indeed bad.

Ironically, getting out of your example is the default example for how bards using music to persuade works.

Sure, I agree with that, I just don't see how letting the player make a meaningless roll adds anything to the situation. Indeed, if the player rolls high it may lead to an argument at the table.

I call foul on this, because this is straight-up 3e right here. DCs exist independent of whether the Pcs can handle them and that's suddenly a problem? I thought you lauded that level of verisimilitude?

Sir_Leorik

2014-09-04, 01:02 PM

Bad framing. Difficulty which exists independent of the players is one thing, but arbitrarily high numbers so you can tell them no and defer responsibility to the system is indeed bad.

You're right, I'm probably not explaining my view properly. I mean a case where the DC is independently high. The PC wants to ride a skateboard over Springfield Gorge, or jump a shark on a motorcycle. That sort of difficulty. Should I as the DM tell them flat out "No, you can't", or allow them to try? If the Rogue wants to steal the King's ring while the King's wearing it, without the King or his guards noticing, should I say no, or allow the Rogue to try?

Ironically, getting out of your example is the default example for how bards using music to persuade works.

Usually. But the Bard in question did sing Spice Girls songs rather than, say Beatles songs.

Kurald Galain

2014-09-04, 01:12 PM

You're right, I'm probably not explaining my view properly. I mean a case where the DC is independently high. The PC wants to ride a skateboard over Springfield Gorge, or jump a shark on a motorcycle. That sort of difficulty. Should I as the DM tell them flat out "No, you can't", or allow them to try?

If you don't want them to succeed, you should outright tell them "no"; you should not insult their intelligence by giving them a roll at a DC that they cannot ever hit anyway.

Several systems allow PCs to hit arbitrarily high DCs with mechanics like exploding dice. D&D is not one of those.

hawklost

2014-09-04, 01:14 PM

If you don't want them to succeed, you should outright tell them "no"; you should not insult their intelligence by giving them a roll at a DC that they cannot ever hit anyway.

Several systems allow PCs to hit arbitrarily high DCs with mechanics like exploding dice. D&D is not one of those.

So your logic is, either they succeed or they fail. there is never anything in between that?

They aren't allowed to partially succeed?
They aren't allowed to epically fail?

just, Ya or Nay and nothing else.

cobaltstarfire

2014-09-04, 01:47 PM

You're right, I'm probably not explaining my view properly. I mean a case where the DC is independently high. The PC wants to ride a skateboard over Springfield Gorge, or jump a shark on a motorcycle. That sort of difficulty. Should I as the DM tell them flat out "No, you can't", or allow them to try? If the Rogue wants to steal the King's ring while the King's wearing it, without the King or his guards noticing, should I say no, or allow the Rogue to try?

I'd tell the rogue that he can try, but warn him that there will be consequences, and while they may even be amusing consequences OOC the character probably isn't going to like them much.

obryn

2014-09-04, 02:01 PM

So your logic is, either they succeed or they fail. there is never anything in between that?

They aren't allowed to partially succeed?
They aren't allowed to epically fail?

just, Ya or Nay and nothing else.
Is there anything about partial success in the rules? I'm honestly asking here, because I'm not looking it up right now. Because while I agree it's a good practice, D&D historically hasn't had it for individual checks, with a few exceptions here and there like Climb. Everything's very binary, pass/fail.

Even moreso, if it's necessary (as you seem to imply) to ensure the skill system functions properly, why the heck isn't it in the PHB?

Tehnar

2014-09-04, 03:27 PM

And when and why you roll – and when you don't and why – is also supported.

No. Non applicable math doesn't prove something. How two d20d unfold when rolled against each other says absolutely nothing about situations where two d20s are not supposed to be rolled against each other. When to apply these contests is part of the math.

How PC versus something the DM designed to be an obstacle unfolds says nothing about how PC versus background data should unfold. And that's what all these examples miss. If you make a commoner who has an exception to being a cardboard background prop, they're an exception. Barbarian arm wrestling Jebediah, strongest in the village? That's a contest. Jebediah pullin random people off the street until the dice fall unlucky and using that to say the math doesn't work? Not so much. This game is not a simulation. It does not need to be able to simulate a constant, stream of consciousness-like progression in real time. You don't get mad at Photoshop for not building web pages, why get mad at Next for not simulating physics?

No one is talking about simulating commoner vs commoner fight. There is no need for mechanics to do that (though if they were able to do so would be nice). All I am concerned is in interaction of NPCs against PCs.

So when it comes to opposed ability checks between a PC and a NPC commoner(s), from your previous posts, you claim that it does not matter that the rules are bad since the DM can autofiat PC success because the commoner action does not matter. But in the quoted post you also state that you should roll when they interact with the PC's (stop being a carboard prop). So I am confused, which is it?

Or am I completely misunderstanding you?

If the difference between an intentional obstacle and a background silhouette is work for you, turn in your DM card and let someone who can handle it have your seat. There are actual complaints to be discussed. "I have to pay attention to my own ideas" is not one of them. The effort involved in this is so trivial that it proves nothing and isn't worth my time or yours.

I believe there are three components to creating a story in TTRPGs. The first part is the DM who sets the stage. The PC's explore the stage. The dice rolls, or mechanics, fill out the details; the way they explore the stage. SO I think the DM has a big enough job setting up the stage to not also try and fill out the details (via fiats). Not only is it more work for the DM, it also takes away a neutral agency between players and the DM, that in my belief enhances the game.

So if I as DM create a scene (or situation), I don't have to worry about what the PCs will do so they don't ruin my story. The PC's will choose what they want to explore, and the rules will give them the tools to do so. This means that if a player wants his character to jump up to a house roof, I don't have to deliberate if he should succeed or not, or even what DC. I just say the house is about 10 ft tall, and the mechanics determine if he can jump or not. Note, I am using jump just as a example, I don't remember if 5e has any rules about it.

It should be the same regarding most actions a PC wants to perform. Rules that provide mechanics to resolve actions.