So lets talk about dumb rules

[Lolzyking]

Feel free to bring up any dumb rules and why they were made.

I'll start off

Adventures league rules you cant gain proficiency in the musket from CoS by any means, the only means available being Bladelock.

can anyone think of a good reason for denying a proficiency bonus to hit to a ranged weapon, thats basically a ranged great axe, that can only fire once per round thanks to loading, (crossbow expert only removes loading from crossbows)

[Pex]

DC for skills depends on who is DM that day.

Point Buy forbids an 18 at first level.

Concentration mechanic for spells. At least let the spellcaster concentrate on more than one spell every X levels, pick a suitable X.

Wish spell is a glorified Anyspell, punishing the player for doing anything with it including benign things such as undoing a harmful effect that specifically calls out Wish can fix it or even the listed examples of uses.

[Crgaston]

A good reason not to allow proficiency? While I obviously have no clue exactly why the designers chose to incorporate this rule, I can guess...

1. Fluff? It's a totally alien weapon to the setting. Nobody would have proficiency with it. Especially since proficiency usually comes from training and practice. Furthermore, it's a difficult weapon to master.

2. Reality? I haven't read CoS, but I'll assume that it's some sort of flintlock. Flintlocks require the firer to maintain aim while a small explosion goes off in front of his eye which then sets off the main charge. Which means a delay between pulling the trigger and the ball leaving the barrel. It's a matter of milliseconds, but ANY flinching then pulls the shot off target, to say nothing of the fact that the delayed firing time means that while the sights may have been lined up when the shot was fired (assuming there are sights at all...most muskets had none), the target and/or the musketeer is liable to have moved by the time the shot goes off.

It takes a lot of practice to master, and I assume there isn't an unlimited supply of ball, powder, patches, flint, etc. to be able to practice much, nor anyone to train the character. Another factor would be that if not cleaned properly, musket bores tend to rust very quickly (black powder residue is extremely hygroscopic), thus if it had been used in the past and not cleaned properly, the bore would likely be in terrible shape, which does not lend itself to accuracy. Furthermore, a musket does not have a rifled bore, which means that the ball is not stabilized in flight, which means that musketeers who do everything exactly right would still have a hard time hitting a 4x8 sheet of plywood much past 50 yards or so.

So, rather than granulate all these issues in a fantasy RPG, the writers simply chose to say "no proficiency."

[TheManicMonocle]

I really don't like the fall damage rules, I feel like they should do way more damage

[Rebonack]

Two blind dudes attacking each other.

Both roll normally due to advantage/disadvantage canceling out.

Absolutely silly.

[Chugger]

Does the Luck feat actually turn a disad into a triple advantage - and did one of the officials really confirm this? If so...it may be a redneck.

[OldTrees1]

*Insert entire thread's worth of comments about the bad math with skill checks vs passive skills vs DCs.*

In particular I don't like how "Reliable Talent vs Observant" VS "Stealth vs Passive Perception*" seems like the role of passive skills was never adequately thought out.

*In cases of many vs one opposed checks, the idea of having the many use their passive score is a smart solution.

[Lolzyking]

A good reason not to allow proficiency? While I obviously have no clue exactly why the designers chose to incorporate this rule, I can guess...

1. Fluff? It's a totally alien weapon to the setting. Nobody would have proficiency with it. Especially since proficiency usually comes from training and practice. Furthermore, it's a difficult weapon to master.

2. Reality? I haven't read CoS, but I'll assume that it's some sort of flintlock. Flintlocks require the firer to maintain aim while a small explosion goes off in front of his eye which then sets off the main charge. Which means a delay between pulling the trigger and the ball leaving the barrel. It's a matter of milliseconds, but ANY flinching then pulls the shot off target, to say nothing of the fact that the delayed firing time means that while the sights may have been lined up when the shot was fired (assuming there are sights at all...most muskets had none), the target and/or the musketeer is liable to have moved by the time the shot goes off.

It takes a lot of practice to master, and I assume there isn't an unlimited supply of ball, powder, patches, flint, etc. to be able to practice much, nor anyone to train the character. Another factor would be that if not cleaned properly, musket bores tend to rust very quickly (black powder residue is extremely hygroscopic), thus if it had been used in the past and not cleaned properly, the bore would likely be in terrible shape, which does not lend itself to accuracy. Furthermore, a musket does not have a rifled bore, which means that the ball is not stabilized in flight, which means that musketeers who do everything exactly right would still have a hard time hitting a 4x8 sheet of plywood much past 50 yards or so.

So, rather than granulate all these issues in a fantasy RPG, the writers simply chose to say "no proficiency."


theres no rule in the book or from mearls or JC denying the proficiency, its just AL admins, same guys who think phb+1 keeps the crunch away from AL (it doesn't, sharpshooter is in the phb, assassin is in the phb, paladin is in the phb....ect)

Bladelock magically makes you proficient in your pact weapon, you can make any weapon , including ranged weapons, your pact weapon if you go through a ritual with it for some hours.

[Contrast]

Snip regarding no prof in musket

I'd buy that if the Weapon Master feat has the pre-requisite 'Must own and have been practicing with the four weapons chosen' :smallwink:


My personal pet peeve is pretty much everything to do with the lighting rules - so many weird interactions.

[suplee215]

Could the rule be there less for balance and more to prevent a single player from having a unique weapon that many players will be jealous of? A lot of players entire goal is to figure out a way to a gun.

[Lolzyking]

Could the rule be there less for balance and more to prevent a single player from having a unique weapon that many players will be jealous of? A lot of players entire goal is to figure out a way to a gun.

but if they wanted to do that they could just add one of their dumb you cant keep it rules like they did for the whiteplume mountain weapons, orcsplitter, hazirawn, ect.

Its literally, you can keep it, you can put a ild rune on it for more damage, make it you pact weapon for +cha on hit, but you cannot add prof to hit.

[ZorroGames]

"Dumb" rules often mean, "I want 'X' and I cannot get it."

Or it can mean, "I want to have something that crimps my style changed."

Fine, do not play AL or change the rules in your non-AL game. Adult decision. Simple. Fixed.

If you won't, i.e., this is a negative maelstorm thread, please serve cheese and bread with your whine.

[mephnick]

- Spear not qualifying for PAM but Quarterstaff does

- Rage damage bonus not applying to thrown weapons, even if they use STR

- Repelling blast having no size restriction and applying to each attack

[youtellatale]

- Spear not qualifying for PAM but Quarterstaff does

- Rage damage bonus not applying to thrown weapons, even if they use STR

- Repelling blast having no size restriction and applying to each attack

These all sound like legitimate concerns to me just from a pass the sniff test perspective. Especially since you can push a dragon with repelling blast...had never considered that, sheesh.

[Zalabim]

- Spear not qualifying for PAM but Quarterstaff does
Adding - Spear not qualifying for PAM, not even the part the Pike qualifies for.

[Aett_Thorn]

Not necessarily a rule as just a bad option:

Black/Copper Dragon Sorcs get to apply their Cha to damage to exactly two spells (one a cantrip and the other is Chromatic Orb) by the PHB spell list.

[DarkKnightJin]

Not necessarily a rule as just a bad option:

Black/Copper Dragon Sorcs get to apply their Cha to damage to exactly two spells (one a cantrip and the other is Chromatic Orb) by the PHB spell list.

Indeed not a rule, but it's kinda dumb that the elements are so unfairly represented. Half of their possible spells is a 'choose your type' one, for cryin' out loud. Every Sorc can get his paws on that and get to add their Cha.

[Rogerdodger557]

Not necessarily a rule as just a bad option:

Black/Copper Dragon Sorcs get to apply their Cha to damage to exactly two spells (one a cantrip and the other is Chromatic Orb) by the PHB spell list.

I was gonna say Melf's Acid Arrow, but then I checked the spell list just to make sure. Glad I did, because that is just weird.

[KorvinStarmast]

Fine, do not play AL or change the rules in your non-AL game. Adult decision. Simple. Fixed. If you won't, i.e., this is a negative maelstorm thread, please serve cheese and bread with your whine. This answer is awarded 10 S&H green stamps. :smallbiggrin:

[snickersnax]

1. Armor prevents spellcasting if not proficient due to being distracted and hampered, but grappling, restrained, encumbered has no effect on spellcasting.

2. Half-elves make better elves than elves do because charisma bonus: Elves are known for singing (bard) and fey subclasses exist for paladin, warlock and sorcerer (all charisma based classes).
Instead elves have a natural ability for the wizard class, because you know, elves toting around spellbooks for 1000 years is a thing? Dumb gets dumber when Bladesinger becomes a subclass of wizard instead of bard.

3. It takes more than 54 years to craft a potion of storm giant strength or a 9th level spell scroll.

4. Polymorph

[Lombra]

Two blind dudes attacking each other.

Both roll normally due to advantage/disadvantage canceling out.

Absolutely silly.

It depends on what you consider a roll to be. It is way more abstract than you think. It's not your attacking performance but the result is a combination of your character's effectiveness and the opponent's defense. You can't see and can't aim properly, while the opponent can't defend properly, it's a one on one disadvantage clause, so if the attacker knows where the opponent is (i.e. knows his location on an hypothetical grid) it makes perfect sense to simplify attack and defense disadvantages (not the game rule per-se).

The result of the roll has no reason to be altered more than for two fighters that can perfectly see each others.

[Haldir]

2. Half-elves make better elves than elves do because charisma bonus: Elves are known for singing (bard) and fey subclasses exist for paladin, warlock and sorcerer (all charisma based classes).
Instead elves have a natural ability for the wizard class, because you know, elves toting around spellbooks for 1000 years is a thing? Dumb gets dumber when Bladesinger becomes a subclass of wizard instead of bard.


You're painfully unaware of some of the classic fluff that goes into Elves. Yes, Elves being masters of magic is totally a thing. They have an inherent connection to the Fey, so they don't need a bunch of subclasses dedicated to it. In most mythologies they are constantly moving in and out of it.

Bladesinger is an even more specific issue where you're just confused. The bladesong refers not to music but to the sound their weapons make as they furiously fight with them. Regardless, there is the College of the Sword for Bards who wanna be a part of that archtype.

When I think bard I typically think plucky human or halfling vagabond. Not to say that there aren't elven bards, but a cultural inclination for music and singing is not necessarily a predilection for bardic powers. Whereas a millenium of life is almost certainly a predilection for gaining arcane knowledge and power.

[Gurifu]

True Polymorph lacks restrictions on the size and temperature of the end result.
Inspiration isn't dumb exactly, but it's a strangely half-hearted rule. It's obviously borrowed from other systems with a clear framework in mind for applying it - the traits/bonds/flaws section on every character sheet. But then it's watered down to near-uselessness and never integrated into the DM's assets, so it's forgotten about most of the time.
Darkvision (and any other form of night-vision that changes what characters actually see, rather than just changing how the players roll dice) is a pain in the neck to DM around, it always has been, and everybody knows it.

[Rebonack]

It depends on what you consider a roll to be. It is way more abstract than you think. It's not your attacking performance but the result is a combination of your character's effectiveness and the opponent's defense. You can't see and can't aim properly, while the opponent can't defend properly, it's a one on one disadvantage clause, so if the attacker knows where the opponent is (i.e. knows his location on an hypothetical grid) it makes perfect sense to simplify attack and defense disadvantages (not the game rule per-se).

The result of the roll has no reason to be altered more than for two fighters that can perfectly see each others.

This is probably just my legacy experience with D&D talking, but being unable to see someone saddled you with a flat miss-chance on top of whatever bonuses or penalties you had.

Now, granted, I don't miss the miss chance. Percentile rolls are annoying, especially when they're increasing how long it takes to resolve a turn. But this feels like one of those situations where a little more complexity wouldn't have been bad. It seems like the sort of place where a specific exception clause would be useful to resolve it from the general rule. Something like-

If both creatures can see each other, neither gets advantage or disadvantage on attack rolls.
If one creature can not see the other, then the creature that can see gets advantage on its attack rolls and the creature that can't see gets disadvantage on its attack rolls.
If both creatures can not see each other, both get disadvantage on their attack rolls.

That's not as crippling as the old 50% miss chance, but it feels more reasonable than the current system.

And unless I'm greatly mistaken, due to how the rules for hiding work two creatures in pitch blackness will be able to pinpoint each other unless one of them takes the Hide action to try to muffle their movements.

Even weirder, being unable to see doesn't force you to slow down at all. I guess everyone in 5e is basically Daredevil.

[snickersnax]

You're painfully unaware of some of the classic fluff that goes into Elves. Yes, Elves being masters of magic is totally a thing. They have an inherent connection to the Fey, so they don't need a bunch of subclasses dedicated to it. In most mythologies they are constantly moving in and out of it.

I'm not saying elves aren't masters of magic. What I'm saying is that magic through music and oral tradition, natural magic through sorcerous bloodline and magic through connection to the fey world matches elves better than magic through arduous book study. Books which are made from animal skins (vellum) or pulped trees (paper) don't fit the respectful relationship that elves have with nature.


Bladesinger is an even more specific issue where you're just confused. The bladesong refers not to music but to the sound their weapons make as they furiously fight with them. Regardless, there is the College of the Sword for Bards who wanna be a part of that archtype.

Blade singer: TRAINING IN WAR AND SONG: You also gain proficiency in the Performance skill if you don't already have it. p142 SCAG Song of victory, song of defense...How is this not singing?


When I think bard I typically think plucky human or halfling vagabond. Not to say that there aren't elven bards, but a cultural inclination for music and singing is not necessarily a predilection for bardic powers. Whereas a millenium of life is almost certainly a predilection for gaining arcane knowledge and power.

"Elves love nature and magic, art and artistry, music and poetry, and the good things of the world." PHB p21
"Elves encountered outside their own lands are commonly traveling minstrels, artists, or sages." PHB p22

Cultural inclination for music and singing plus natural aptitude for magic sounds like bard to me.

[LaserFace]

Two blind dudes attacking each other.

Both roll normally due to advantage/disadvantage canceling out.

Absolutely silly.


This is probably just my legacy experience with D&D talking, but being unable to see someone saddled you with a flat miss-chance on top of whatever bonuses or penalties you had.

Now, granted, I don't miss the miss chance. Percentile rolls are annoying, especially when they're increasing how long it takes to resolve a turn. But this feels like one of those situations where a little more complexity wouldn't have been bad. It seems like the sort of place where a specific exception clause would be useful to resolve it from the general rule. Something like-

If both creatures can see each other, neither gets advantage or disadvantage on attack rolls.
If one creature can not see the other, then the creature that can see gets advantage on its attack rolls and the creature that can't see gets disadvantage on its attack rolls.
If both creatures can not see each other, both get disadvantage on their attack rolls.

That's not as crippling as the old 50% miss chance, but it feels more reasonable than the current system.

And unless I'm greatly mistaken, due to how the rules for hiding work two creatures in pitch blackness will be able to pinpoint each other unless one of them takes the Hide action to try to muffle their movements.

Even weirder, being unable to see doesn't force you to slow down at all. I guess everyone in 5e is basically Daredevil.

I tend to agree with this.

Actually I think it's basically all that really perturbs me about 5E. But, it can be easily house-ruled so whatevs.

I think the intent of the edition was to make things super-duper simple but with enough leeway such that any experienced DM would feel encouraged to just improve it as they saw fit without being beholden to complexities they didn't care for.

There are probably some dumb optional rules out there I could include, but I don't really spend time thinking about them.

[Aett_Thorn]

I'm not saying elves aren't masters of magic. What I'm saying is that magic through music and oral tradition, natural magic through sorcerous bloodline and magic through connection to the fey world matches elves better than magic through arduous book study. Books which are made from animal skins (vellum) or pulped trees (paper) don't fit the respectful relationship that elves have with nature.

Back in 2E, Elves couldn't even BE Bards until the Complete Bard's Handbook came out. Bard was restricted to Humans and Half-Elves. So going back that far, it makes sense that Half-Elves fit the mold better. Bards were seen as wanderers (like Half-Elves did), not staying in one place (like the isolated Elves)




Blade singer: TRAINING IN WAR AND SONG: You also gain proficiency in the Performance skill if you don't already have it. p142 SCAG Song of victory, song of defense...How is this not singing?

It could also be the metaphorical song that the weapon makes as it moves through the air. Again, back as far as 2E, the Bladesong was both in reference to the noise that the weapons made and the "humming" that certain practitioners made when engaged in the style. No actual singing was used. Performance can also be used to make amazing weapons displays, and is not restricted to just singing and playing an instrument. Heck, acting would be under Performance as well.




"Elves love nature and magic, art and artistry, music and poetry, and the good things of the world." PHB p21
"Elves encountered outside their own lands are commonly traveling minstrels, artists, or sages." PHB p22

Cultural inclination for music and singing plus natural aptitude for magic sounds like bard to me.

I'm AFB right now, but doesn't the PHB section on Bards specify that not all minstrels are bards?

[Rebonack]

I tend to agree with this.

Actually I think it's basically all that really perturbs me about 5E. But, it can be easily house-ruled so whatevs.

I think the intent of the edition was to make things super-duper simple but with enough leeway such that any experienced DM would feel encouraged to just improve it as they saw fit without being beholden to complexities they didn't care for.

There are probably some dumb optional rules out there I could include, but I don't really spend time thinking about them.

So to compile a few of those house-rules: one Blinded creature fights as RAW. Two Blinded creatures both fight with disadvantage.
For pinpointing a creature in pitch blackness: Perception at disadvantage VS the creature's passive Stealth score. One success means you know a creature is nearby, two means you know exactly where they are. Re-check at the beginning of each turn.
Movement in pitch blackness: You may move at half speed without making an Ability Check. If you try to move at your full speed while Blinded, you must succeed on a DC 15 Acrobatics check (DC 20 in difficult terrain) or fall prone.

[Easy_Lee]

The crafting and downtime rules - hurray Fabricate pooping on the little guy.

The non-revised beast master companion has less autonomy than a familiar, a mount, or even a risen zombie from Animate Dead.

Agonizing EB warlocks get a fourth attack before fighters do.

Rogues and Bards make better wrestlers than Barbarians or Fighters.

If a long line of commoners each hold an action to take an item from the person to their right and hand it to the person on their left, you can transport items over arbitrarily long distances in a single round.

Group Sled: have everyone in the group stand on the same object. On each player's turn, they grab the object and drag it, then step back on. Provided that everyone is strong enough to drag the object, combined movement speed can be faster than anyone can move individually.

[Aett_Thorn]

Back to more generic dumb rules:

- Druids 'won't' wear armor made from metal? Really, even Dwarven Mountain Druids? Sure, I could see some viewing it as unnatural, but wouldn't armor made out of the skins of animals be just as repugnant?

- Rock Gnomes' little tinker ability: was this really the best the Devs could come up with?

- Dragonborn not getting any sort of actually trait that makes sense for being, you know, Dragonborn: Darkvision, claws, or scale armor all seem to make sense for them, but they get nothing of the sort (until the UA).

- Bear Totem Barbarians can get resistance to almost all damage while raging, even in heavy armor, but other Barbs lose their resistance to B/P/S damage if they wear chain mail.

- If you're a spellcaster like a Sorc or a Wizard, you can get heavy armor proficiency easier by multiclassing into a Cleric than into a Fighter.

- True Strike.

[mephnick]

Rogues and Bards make better wrestlers than Barbarians or Fighters.


Thank god for the Skill Feats UA. If they're not in Xanathars I'll revolt

[snickersnax]

- Druids 'won't' wear armor made from metal? Really, even Dwarven Mountain Druids? Sure, I could see some viewing it as unnatural, but wouldn't armor made out of the skins of animals be just as repugnant?

To a dwarf with a hammer everything is an anvil
To a druid with a heat metal spell, every metal armor is a death trap.

[KiltieMacPipes]

You can't make a Dex Fighter with a spear like Oberyn Martel from GoT or Prince Nuada from Hellboy II. No finesse-able spears. Also quarterstaff.

[Aett_Thorn]

You can't make a Dex Fighter with a spear like Oberyn Martel from GoT or Prince Nuada from Hellboy II. No finesse-able spears. Also quarterstaff.

Make a Monk. Can use Dex for both of those. And both of the examples that you listed don't exactly wear a lot of armor. Though I guess Oberyn wasn't exactly the wisest combatant.

[Haldir]

Unless you can channel some hidden form of energy, there is no way to stun opponents. See Ki or spells.

Guys with giant hammers definitely cannot stun people.

[KorvinStarmast]

There is no way to stun opponents. See Ki or spells.
Unless you are a monk. This makes monks special, or valuable to a team.
Guys with giant hammers definitely cannot stun people. There is a good reason for that. Stunned is a powerful condition to impose on anyone. You don't want this to be a routine happening, or creatures get routinely taken out of the fight. Stun in this edition is "easy button" and is thus limited in its availability.


Stunned
• A stunned creature is incapacitated (see the condition), can’t move, and can speak only falteringly.
• The creature automatically fails Strength and Dexterity saving throws.
• Attack rolls against the creature have advantage.
Incapacitated
• An incapacitated creature can’t take actions or reactions.

The following things (other than a monk) can impose the Stunned condition (aside from various monsters who can stun you with special attacks)
Spells:
Contagion
Power Word Stun
Divine Word
Symbol
Items
Hammer of Thunderbolts
Robe of Scintillating colors
Staff of Thunder and Lightning

Note how high level the spells are that stun a target.

Given that a creature who is stunned can't take actions or reactions, stunned takes the creature out of play.

The lesser form of this kind of skill, via shove/knock prone, is available through various means.

[Haldir]

Unless you are a monk. This makes monks special, or valuable to a team. There is a good reason for that. Stunned is a powerful condition to impose on anyone. You don't want this to be a routine happening, or creatures get routinely taken out of the fight. Stun in this edition is "easy button" and is thus limited in its availability.


The following things (other than a monk) can impose the Stunned condition (aside from various monsters who can stun you with special attacks)
Spells:
Contagion
Power Word Stun
Divine Word
Symbol
Items
Hammer of Thunderbolts
Robe of Scintillating colors
Staff of Thunder and Lightning

Note how high level the spells are that stun a target.

Given that a creature who is stunned can't take actions or reactions, stunned takes the creature out of play.

The lesser form of this kind of skill, via shove/knock prone, is available through various means.

Having classes otherwise so lacking in value that you need to bolster them with what is a fairly universal concept.

[mcsillas]

Two blind dudes attacking each other.

Both roll normally due to advantage/disadvantage canceling out.

Absolutely silly.

Agreed, the rule is not intuitive. I impose disadvantage to attack on both parties when blinded such as when they are both located in a heavily obscured area or when one is looking into a heavily obscured area to find the other party. I allow those located on the perimeter of a heavily obscure area to see out while those outside of the area can not see in. This keeps heavily obscured areas consistent, since someone located in darkness can see into an illuminated area while those in the illuminated area can not see into the darkness. This also allows rogues to use sneak attack while located in heavily obscured areas.

[KorvinStarmast]

Having classes otherwise so lacking in value that you need to bolster them with what is a fairly universal concept. ?? I am not sure how that is a response to my post. If your point is that you think monks are a dumb class, I perhaps understand this? :smallconfused:

[SharkForce]

Bladelock magically makes you proficient in your pact weapon, you can make any weapon , including ranged weapons, your pact weapon if you go through a ritual with it for some hours.

minor correction: bladelocks can only do that ritual for magical weapons. you could turn a magical machinegun into a pact weapon, but you couldn't turn even a nonmagical dart into one.

[Contrast]

minor correction: bladelocks can only do that ritual for magical weapons. you could turn a magical machinegun into a pact weapon, but you couldn't turn even a nonmagical dart into one.

Huh. I never noticed you aren't allowed to have your pact weapon be a ranged weapon before (unless it is magical).

Eldritch blast will usually be better but I'm not really sure what they're trying to restrict by doing that (except apparently preventing people using a flintlock in CoS :smalltongue:) so I'll add that to my list of dumb rules :smallwink:

[Demonslayer666]

Everyone has the same proficiency bonus. A wizard should not be able to use any weapon as effectively as a fighter (to hit anyway).

You can't learn new skills without spending a feat.

Dog-piling ability checks because everyone knows all the skills. I want trained only skills back.

New combatants have no way to surprise anyone already in combat.

You get your dex bonus when surprised (not even dodging).

Armor protects you from being grabbed some magic fire and not others (fireball/scorching ray).

You can't fully restrain someone by grabbing them (stop them from using their arms or talking).

Alert protects you from being surprised, but doesn't help with Initiative Perception.

Observant only helps with passive perception.

Encumbrance. (Of course I use the variant rule!)

Swimming and holding your breath.

Advantage and disadvantage should stack. So if you had advantage twice, and disadvantage once, you would still have advantage (you would have to have disadvantage twice to cancel both advantages).

Getting cut with a sword makes you sleepy. (Sleeping one night heals you back to full) I like the rest system for spells and abilities, but not healing.

Strength, Intelligence, and Charisma Saves.

Edit: had some coffee.

[Rogerdodger557]

Alert protects you from being surprised, but doesn't help with Initiative.



The actual first ability for Alert:

You gain a +5 bonus to initiative.

:smallconfused:

[Waterdeep Merch]

No support for ranged paladins. I love the concept of a holy archer a lot, but the only support for one is in the cleric's list. And they're not really built to be good enough at it to act as the team's sniper.

Terrible two-weapon fighting rules. Serious pet peeve. Though I can acknowledge that the problem lies more in how hard it is to balance TWF in a way that feels good within 5e's mechanics, because it's equally difficult for us homebrewers to fix.

Weapon differentiation is mostly flavor. Almost no real reason to use bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage in unique scenarios. Glut of 'resistant/immune to nonmagical weapon' monsters.

Most of the armor types are meaningless. You wear nothing, studded leather, a breastplate, half plate, or full plate. All the other options are strictly inferior and you only use them if forced to. Druids might grab hide if they can't argue that breastplates can be made of wood, but that's the only exception.

Magic armor and shields stacking + bonuses. You can avoid this as a DM by just never giving them to your players, of course. Still doesn't make it less stupid.

The entire magic item buying/selling system, alongside rarity. It's not well-thought out and has some obvious inconsistencies and balance issues. I like the idea that being able to buy or sell magic items isn't a given in every system. I don't like not having that as an option in any way that's actually playable.

Crafting rules. Period. They're so bad that I dissuade all of my players from trying to play any kind of crafter, even for flavor. Though this is, again, hard even for a homebrewer to get right.

Running businesses and owning property has a bad tendency to run in the red no matter what you do. Even if they don't, you'll never make any kind of reasonable money off of them to make the venture worth the insane startup costs. I agree that this shouldn't be a focus of most games. I don't agree that it should be that punitive, and it wrecks verisimilitude.

[Contrast]

Everyone has the same proficiency bonus. A wizard should not be able to use any weapon as effectively as a fighter (to hit anyway).

I mean they can use daggers, darts, slings, quarterstaves and light crossbows as well - that hardly seems to qualify as 'any weapon'. And that's if you ignore that the fighter will be doing in one turn what the wizard will in 2-4 turns. And ignoring all the other abilities inherent to being a fighter.



New combatants have no way to surprise anyone already in combat.

The main issue I see here is the limitation on readied actions not allowing movement so spellcasters and ranged characters can all just ready and attack from hidden together or dash but a melee character can't ready a dash into combat and attack. I see this as more of an issue with the ready rules than surprise rules.


Armor protects you from being grabbed.

I assume you mean protects from touch spells? Grappling has no relation to AC (indeed some armours will limit your dex and make acrobatics to escape more difficult).

[mephnick]

Crafting rules. Period. They're so bad that I dissuade all of my players from trying to play any kind of crafter, even for flavor. Though this is, again, hard even for a homebrewer to get right.

I honestly think this was done on purpose. I believe 5e was really trying to go back to the old days where PCs were adventurers. They're meant to be out exploring the wilderness, not sitting on the street crafting magic items. Crafting was also needed in 3.5 because it was another way to keep up with the expected loot/magic level of the system as you leveled. There's no such thing in 5e. So basically, they threw a bare bones crafting system in with the other weak downtime rules to try and satiate 3.5 fans,called it a day and focused on the fantasy mechanics that D&D is actually supposed emulate. Personally I wish they had outright stated that crafting is something for NPCs and had zero rules for it.

[Waterdeep Merch]

I honestly think this was done on purpose. I believe 5e was really trying to go back to the old days where PCs were adventurers. They're meant to be out exploring the wilderness, not sitting on the street crafting magic items. Crafting was also needed in 3.5 because it was another way to keep up with the expected loot/magic level of the system as you leveled. There's no such thing in 5e. So basically, they threw a bare bones crafting system in with the other weak downtime rules to try and satiate 3.5 fans,called it a day and focused on the fantasy mechanics that D&D is actually supposed emulate. Personally I wish they had outright stated that crafting is something for NPCs and had zero rules for it.

That's the weird thing- the expectation of downtime days from the DMG flies in the face of not having decent crafting rules. Downtime is the only place that crafting would normally makes sense for adventurers, yet it wasn't codified or expected in the previous editions that it would have worked best with. I'm not asking for much, I'm just asking for it to not be kinda crap.

There's some other issues with downtime, but I do like the idea and the execution isn't so bad that I can't use it more or less out of the box. Matching working crafting rules to it would have worked so well with them.

[Contrast]

I honestly think this was done on purpose. I believe 5e was really trying to go back to the old days where PCs were adventurers. They're meant to be out exploring the wilderness, not sitting on the street crafting magic items.

This is actually explicit in the DMG. P131 of the DMG contains guidance for DMs on creating rules for downtime activities and the very first bullet point says 'An activity should never negate the need or desire for characters to go on adventures' and continues to suggest that activities should be something for players to sink resources into (rather than get resources out of) and ideally should be used to lace in plot hooks and foreshadowing.

[Demonslayer666]

The actual first ability for Alert:

You gain a +5 bonus to initiative.

:smallconfused:

That's what I get for posting without coffee. I meant to say perception. :)



I mean they can use daggers, darts, slings, quarterstaves and light crossbows as well - that hardly seems to qualify as 'any weapon'. And that's if you ignore that the fighter will be doing in one turn what the wizard will in 2-4 turns. And ignoring all the other abilities inherent to being a fighter.

The main issue I see here is the limitation on readied actions not allowing movement so spellcasters and ranged characters can all just ready and attack from hidden together or dash but a melee character can't ready a dash into combat and attack. I see this as more of an issue with the ready rules than surprise rules.

I assume you mean protects from touch spells? Grappling has no relation to AC (indeed some armours will limit your dex and make acrobatics to escape more difficult).

I didn't say a wizard can use any weapon. A wizard should not be as good as a fighter with any weapon a wizard can use.

Grappling - yep, no attack roll, my bad. Again, I blame lack of coffee. :) I think my beef is more that armor protects against scorching ray, but not fireball, and like you said, touch spells.

[Ravinsild]

I honestly think this was done on purpose. I believe 5e was really trying to go back to the old days where PCs were adventurers. They're meant to be out exploring the wilderness, not sitting on the street crafting magic items. Crafting was also needed in 3.5 because it was another way to keep up with the expected loot/magic level of the system as you leveled. There's no such thing in 5e. So basically, they threw a bare bones crafting system in with the other weak downtime rules to try and satiate 3.5 fans,called it a day and focused on the fantasy mechanics that D&D is actually supposed emulate. Personally I wish they had outright stated that crafting is something for NPCs and had zero rules for it.

So many MMOs, especially Elder Scrolls Online, but so many of them have crafting which is both fun and can supplement you at least somewhat when new to max level or as you level. Of course you're out in the wilderness exploring, but if you happen to find some neat dragon scales from a dragon you killed shouldn't you be able to make a sweet suit of dragon scale armor if you know how to make armor?

Same for potions, scrolls, enchantments, etc... Video games upped the crafting game hardcore so it's kind of a staple of RPG's so people would expect D&D to have it, and have it well, also right?

[Ravinsild]

This is actually explicit in the DMG. P131 of the DMG contains guidance for DMs on creating rules for downtime activities and the very first bullet point says 'An activity should never negate the need or desire for characters to go on adventures' and continues to suggest that activities should be something for players to sink resources into (rather than get resources out of) and ideally should be used to lace in plot hooks and foreshadowing.

However in the Monster Hunter game the gear treadmill is that you kill things, make gear out of the things you killed and then have to kill bigger and stronger things for better gear to kill bigger and stronger things for better gear to kill bigger and stronger things...you get the point.

Crafting items wouldn't make you not want to go on an adventure, it would gear you up for the next, harder, adventure.

[Contrast]

I didn't say a wizard can use any weapon. A wizard should not be as good as a fighter with any weapon a wizard can use.

My bad - was reading your statement that wizards were as good with all weapons as fighters, not that they should not be as good with any weapons as fighters. I still disagree with you though. 5E is trying to encourage a much more human scale of hero and even then a fighter will outstrip a wizard in the few weapons wizards can use almost instantly with fighting styles and action surges and subclass abilities. By level 5 they are streaks ahead even if the hit modified is the same. This is assuming equal levels of base ability in their stats as well which almost certainly isn't true.



So many MMOs, especially Elder Scrolls Online, but so many of them have crafting which is both fun and can supplement you at least somewhat when new to max level or as you level. Of course you're out in the wilderness exploring, but if you happen to find some neat dragon scales from a dragon you killed shouldn't you be able to make a sweet suit of dragon scale armor if you know how to make armor?

Same for potions, scrolls, enchantments, etc... Video games upped the crafting game hardcore so it's kind of a staple of RPG's so people would expect D&D to have it, and have it well, also right?

...I mean there are crafting rules for magical and non-magical equipment. They're just incredibly basic to minimise the paperwork and encourage you to get back to the adventuring like I said :smallconfused: For instance dragonscale armour would take an 11th level character 50k gold and 5 and a half years to craft. The rules are there they just aren't very nuanced and generally are designed to discourage crafting because they wanted people adventuring instead.


However in the Monster Hunter game the gear treadmill is that you kill things, make gear out of the things you killed and then have to kill bigger and stronger things for better gear to kill bigger and stronger things for better gear to kill bigger and stronger things...you get the point.

Crafting items wouldn't make you not want to go on an adventure, it would gear you up for the next, harder, adventure.

Adventure rewards you with loot - you have loot and can immediately go out on another adventure. Adventure awards you with crafting materials - you spend time crafting your reward and then go out on another adventure. Therefore crafting = less focus on adventuring.

Plus the issue with crafting rules is if you make them profitable it brings into question why your PCs don't just sit at home (the issue they are explicitly trying to avoid). If they're not profitable it brings into question how Timmy the Tailor down the street is making a living.

I'm not arguing against crafting rules here and agree the ones in 5E are certainly incredibly bare bones - I was just trying to point out that mephnick was right. One of the explicit design decisions they made with 5E was that they were trying to discourage you from sitting at home crafting stuff and get out adventuring instead.

[Pex]

There is no need to screw up crafting to encourage adventuring. PCs will adventure because players want to play the game. Crafting is a hobby for such PCs at worst. At best the player gets the fun of using the item he crafted on his adventures.

In an old 3E game it was great joy for me that my cleric made a Holy Avenger for his paladin cohort. Getting loot from treasure hoards and quests is fine and dandy, but for that sword, I did that. I made it. I contributed an item of great power and responsibility and made the world a bit more Righteous.

[mephnick]

There is no need to screw up crafting to encourage adventuring.

Sure, but there's also no need to support it with a specific crafting system. They threw you a bone, it sucked, oh well. It would have been much better of them to say "Crafting isn't what we're focused on and it doesn't work with the presumed power level of the system compared to easy access to magic items, let's forget about it. Sorry." but I guess they tried to be nice or something.

[Waterdeep Merch]

Sure, but there's also no need to support it with a specific crafting system. They threw you a bone, it sucked, oh well. It would have been much better of them to say "Crafting isn't what we're focused on and it doesn't work with the presumed power level of the system compared to easy access to magic items, let's forget about it. Sorry." but I guess they tried to be nice or something.
I'm not super mad about it or anything, as 5e is certainly my preferred roleplaying system right now and I think they did a wonderful job with it. Focusing overly much on a niche like crafting wouldn't have been wise for the base rules, as you've said, and they've been transparent about it not being a priority and with good reasoning. And designing crafting rules is a fun side project for me as a DM.

It's simply part of what I'd classify as 'dumb rules'.

[Rebonack]

Terrible two-weapon fighting rules. Serious pet peeve. Though I can acknowledge that the problem lies more in how hard it is to balance TWF in a way that feels good within 5e's mechanics, because it's equally difficult for us homebrewers to fix.

I feel like this has more to do with how the other weapon-style Mastery feats work than it does with TWF alone. GWF and PAM both give bonus-action attacks, which is supposed to be TWF's thing. Doesn't help that Duel Weider is arguably worse than +2 Dex.

[Arelai]

You can't make a Dex Fighter with a spear like Oberyn Martel from GoT or Prince Nuada from Hellboy II. No finesse-able spears. Also quarterstaff.

They're called monks.

[Waterdeep Merch]

I feel like this has more to do with how the other weapon-style Mastery feats work than it does with TWF alone. GWF and PAM both give bonus-action attacks, which is supposed to be TWF's thing. Doesn't help that Duel Weider is arguably worse than +2 Dex.
Yeah, it's really weird. I haven't come up with a system I like much. Granting TWF an extra offhand attack at level 11+ fixes the math, but Dual Wielder just sucks. And improving it without making it like all the other feats is fairly difficult.

I mean, it really shouldn't be more defensive than using a shield, and it shouldn't deal more damage than a great weapon. You'd think that would mean its niche ought to be utility, but I prefer to make that the realm of using a single one-handed weapon without a shield because it makes more sense.

Right now I'm toying with making TWF the AoE weapon choice- when you use your bonus action to make an attack with an offhand weapon, you can choose to make an additional weapon attack with either of your weapons against any opponents within reach when you do so, alternating between attacking with both weapons.

Then for Dual Wielder, adding some of the old dervish dance in- you can take a 5 foot step that ignores attacks of opportunity before, during, or after that bonus action and attack everyone that would be in your reach after the move in addition to whoever you hit previously with it.

I need to try these things in a game to see if it works out okay.

[Ravinsild]

Yeah, it's really weird. I haven't come up with a system I like much. Granting TWF an extra offhand attack at level 11+ fixes the math, but Dual Wielder just sucks. And improving it without making it like all the other feats is fairly difficult.

I mean, it really shouldn't be more defensive than using a shield, and it shouldn't deal more damage than a great weapon. You'd think that would mean its niche ought to be utility, but I prefer to make that the realm of using a single one-handed weapon without a shield because it makes more sense.

Right now I'm toying with making TWF the AoE weapon choice- when you use your bonus action to make an attack with an offhand weapon, you can choose to make an additional weapon attack with either of your weapons against any opponents within reach when you do so, alternating between attacking with both weapons.

Then for Dual Wielder, adding some of the old dervish dance in- you can take a 5 foot step that ignores attacks of opportunity before, during, or after that bonus action and attack everyone that would be in your reach after the move in addition to whoever you hit previously with it.

I need to try these things in a game to see if it works out okay.

I have put 0 thought into this what-so ever but what about Dual-Wielder feat lets you dual-wield two handed weapons but you cannot add your attack modifier (dex or strength or w/e) to the damage roll.

[Vogonjeltz]

Two blind dudes attacking each other.

Both roll normally due to advantage/disadvantage canceling out.

Absolutely silly.

Being blind makes it more difficult to attack and defend.

Once you've both been inconvenienced on offense and defense it only makes sense that they cancel out effectively.

It wouldn't make any sense for someone who's blinded to be able to defend against an attack as well as someone who can see.

[Dudewithknives]

1. bound accuracy is the rule of the system however...

Archery
+2 to hit from a fighting style that nobody else gets.
An uncommon, max of 500g item that gives a flat +2 damage that nothing else gets
The only thing in the game were different magic stacks. Got a +3 bow and a few +3 arrows you have horded.
A feat that adds a flat +10 damage , ignores 1/2 damage and 3/4 cover and effectively makes a longbow a 600 foot range weapon
Another feat or even another fighting style that lets you shot someone even in point blank range.

Welcome to +8 to hit and +8 damage for those must have situations. 600 foot range, ignoring all cover but total, another +10 to damage when you really need it, and can shoot in melee anyway.

Good job bound accuracy.

Good thing there are all those one handed and versatile weapon feats and abilities... or wait those are not that great.


2. Great weapon master and sharp shooter giving +10 damage again in bound accuracy.

3. Warlock short rest casting. Don't base an entire class around the DM letting you rest if they choose to.

4. Dragonborn with no darkvision....

5. Magic missile damage calculation rulings.

6. Bound accuracy but go ahead Bladesinger stack 2 stats for concentration, and sure stack 2 stats AND still can wear armor with it.

[Isaire]

New combatants have no way to surprise anyone already in combat.

Functionally, what should happen if new combatants try to surprise people already in combat? The only thing this could possibly affect is the rogue's assassinate ability, right? You could still be attacking from hidden so have advantage, what more is needed?

[Waterdeep Merch]

I have put 0 thought into this what-so ever but what about Dual-Wielder feat lets you dual-wield two handed weapons but you cannot add your attack modifier (dex or strength or w/e) to the damage roll.
It would be much worse. The best great weapons for damage, the greatsword and the maul, cause an average of 7 damage. Just capping your strength or dexterity would give you 5 damage, meaning you'd surpass the damage done on great weapons without modifiers at really early levels. Requiring a feat to do this would make doing so a complete waste compared to simply bumping your strength or dexterity, since you'd only need a 16 in either to be nearly equal in average damage and every attribute modifier past that surpasses it. So most weapon primary TWF characters would make the feat terrible by level 4.

Letting them attack with the modifier by taking the fighting style gets closer to reasonable. It's overpowered at low levels, but balances out better later when the 2.5 extra average damage per attack stops meaning all that much. GWM will still outclass it in damage unless both are allowed to function together, which probably shouldn't be allowed and is likely giving someone reading this right now a nasty rash thinking about it.

But the biggest problem is PAM with reach weapons. Just imagine if that, GWM, and this were to inhabit a single character. God forbid rolled stats allowed them to fit in Sentinel while they're at it.

[Pex]

Sure, but there's also no need to support it with a specific crafting system. They threw you a bone, it sucked, oh well. It would have been much better of them to say "Crafting isn't what we're focused on and it doesn't work with the presumed power level of the system compared to easy access to magic items, let's forget about it. Sorry." but I guess they tried to be nice or something.

Condescend much?

[Jerrykhor]

No support for ranged paladins. I love the concept of a holy archer a lot, but the only support for one is in the cleric's list. And they're not really built to be good enough at it to act as the team's sniper.

Terrible two-weapon fighting rules. Serious pet peeve. Though I can acknowledge that the problem lies more in how hard it is to balance TWF in a way that feels good within 5e's mechanics, because it's equally difficult for us homebrewers to fix.

Weapon differentiation is mostly flavor. Almost no real reason to use bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage in unique scenarios. Glut of 'resistant/immune to nonmagical weapon' monsters.

Most of the armor types are meaningless. You wear nothing, studded leather, a breastplate, half plate, or full plate. All the other options are strictly inferior and you only use them if forced to. Druids might grab hide if they can't argue that breastplates can be made of wood, but that's the only exception.

Magic armor and shields stacking + bonuses. You can avoid this as a DM by just never giving them to your players, of course. Still doesn't make it less stupid.

The entire magic item buying/selling system, alongside rarity. It's not well-thought out and has some obvious inconsistencies and balance issues. I like the idea that being able to buy or sell magic items isn't a given in every system. I don't like not having that as an option in any way that's actually playable.

Crafting rules. Period. They're so bad that I dissuade all of my players from trying to play any kind of crafter, even for flavor. Though this is, again, hard even for a homebrewer to get right.

Running businesses and owning property has a bad tendency to run in the red no matter what you do. Even if they don't, you'll never make any kind of reasonable money off of them to make the venture worth the insane startup costs. I agree that this shouldn't be a focus of most games. I don't agree that it should be that punitive, and it wrecks verisimilitude.

Are we talking dumb rules, or dumb balance? Anyways, I'll try to follow.

Ranged paladins - Could be an intended weakness for a class that has very few, or just wotc's vision of the class never resorting to ranged combat due to it being seen as cowardly.

TWF - Yes. I'm playing one right now and it feels bad.

Weapon differentiation - Its different if your DM makes it feel different.

Armour types - Medium armour is garbage, that's the main problem.

Magic armor and shields stacking - I don't see a problem. If you have a problem with high AC, you're a bad DM.

Magic item shopping/crafting - A magic mart is somehow still a hilarious concept to me. I can imagine a bunch of rich level 1 nobles who want to get into adventuring going to the local magic mart and coming out with a horde of magic items. Again, if you want to implement this as DM, its up to you. Crafting is a lot of work though, agreed.

Adventurers don't make good accountants or business men, but doesn't mean that having some investment is bad. Again, its very YMMV, and of course should not be the prime focus in a game that is mostly about killing stuff and taking loot.

[90sMusic]

The first page of this thread reads less like talking about dumb rules and more like the OP just complaining about one thing in particular he doesn't like and wants to argue with anyone that disagrees with him about it... Also, Adventure League isn't "D&D rules", it is strictly adventure league and that type of standardized play format has always been very lame in my experience in every edition. But anyway....

Lots of things I find pretty dumb in 5e:
-Fall damage having a cap, and a very low one at that, is very silly.

-Holding your breath for insane amounts of time underwater, despite the intense physical exertion involved like swimming around (usually with a hundred plus pounds of equipment)

-Having virtually no way for a melee character to ever inflict AOE damage, even to weak targets who are side by side and in range

-By the rules, everyone fighting in darkness treats it like a normal fight because they both can't see and can't be seen, so it cancels it's self out unless someone has devil's sight or true sight.

-Crafting rules seem poorly thought out with some items taking very little time that should take much longer while others take insane amounts of time that should be just a couple of hours of work

-Dragonborn not having darkvision. Seriously. Why? Makes no sense.

-Virtually everything about the sorcerer class

Luckily, houserules fix all of these problems and more.

[Easy_Lee]

A man who's paralyzed and lying on the ground is more difficult to hit with a ranged attack than a sprinting athlete wearing a blindfold.

[SharkForce]

A man who's paralyzed and lying on the ground is more difficult to hit with a ranged attack than a sprinting athlete wearing a blindfold.

unless you're standing 5 feet away or less, in which case the athlete becomes harder to hit than previously, while the paralyzed guy becomes easier to hit.

[Rebonack]

Yeah, it's really weird. I haven't come up with a system I like much. Granting TWF an extra offhand attack at level 11+ fixes the math, but Dual Wielder just sucks. And improving it without making it like all the other feats is fairly difficult.

The best option I've come up with for Dual Wielder works more or less as follows.

Dual Wielder makes it so you don't have to use a Bonus Action to make your off-hand attack. You just get one additional attack with the attack action. As a bonus action you can focus your assault on a foe. Each consecutive hit against them deals stacking bonus damage that grows each time you bop 'em. The goal then would be to make GWF better damage over ~two attacks (accounting too for the accuracy ding) while Dual Wielder just keeps growing more powerful the more you whomp on someone. So GWF is better for taking on large groups of weak to moderately powerful enemies (lower accuracy, cleave) while Dual Wielder is better for taking on big, hard targets (higher accuracy, stacking bonus damage).

I think that would resolve the two niches enough to give both of them a reason to exist.

[Mitth'raw'nuruo]

A good reason not to allow proficiency? While I obviously have no clue exactly why the designers chose to incorporate this rule, I can guess...

1. Fluff? It's a totally alien weapon to the setting. Nobody would have proficiency with it. Especially since proficiency usually comes from training and practice. Furthermore, it's a difficult weapon to master.

2. Reality? I haven't read CoS, but I'll assume that it's some sort of flintlock. Flintlocks require the firer to maintain aim while a small explosion goes off in front of his eye which then sets off the main charge. Which means a delay between pulling the trigger and the ball leaving the barrel. It's a matter of milliseconds, but ANY flinching then pulls the shot off target, to say nothing of the fact that the delayed firing time means that while the sights may have been lined up when the shot was fired (assuming there are sights at all...most muskets had none), the target and/or the musketeer is liable to have moved by the time the shot goes off.

It takes a lot of practice to master, and I assume there isn't an unlimited supply of ball, powder, patches, flint, etc. to be able to practice much, nor anyone to train the character. Another factor would be that if not cleaned properly, musket bores tend to rust very quickly (black powder residue is extremely hygroscopic), thus if it had been used in the past and not cleaned properly, the bore would likely be in terrible shape, which does not lend itself to accuracy. Furthermore, a musket does not have a rifled bore, which means that the ball is not stabilized in flight, which means that musketeers who do everything exactly right would still have a hard time hitting a 4x8 sheet of plywood much past 50 yards or so.

So, rather than granulate all these issues in a fantasy RPG, the writers simply chose to say "no proficiency."

Not to be a stickler, but the delay in a flintlock is not mili secs, it is secs.

[Luccan]

Being blind makes it more difficult to attack and defend.

Once you've both been inconvenienced on offense and defense it only makes sense that they cancel out effectively.

It wouldn't make any sense for someone who's blinded to be able to defend against an attack as well as someone who can see.

I believe the point is, they both have disadvantage (blind), but because the both have advantage (opponent is blind), it cancels and thus two blind guys fighting works exactly the same as two non-blind guys fighting. The point is, they should both realistically have disadvantage, but don't because the rules don't take things like that into account.

[Varlon]

I believe the point is, they both have disadvantage (blind), but because the both have advantage (opponent is blind), it cancels and thus two blind guys fighting works exactly the same as two non-blind guys fighting. The point is, they should both realistically have disadvantage, but don't because the rules don't take things like that into account.

The flip side of this is that you're saying that if you're wearing a blindfold, it should be just as difficult to hit someone who can see you and is actively defending as it is to hit someone who is blindfolded themselves.

[Luccan]

The flip side of this is that you're saying that if you're wearing a blindfold, it should be just as difficult to hit someone who can see you and is actively defending as it is to hit someone who is blindfolded themselves.

Realistically, yes. Because the disadvantage indicates what's making it hard for you. If the other blindfolded guy is moving, I've got no clue where he is anymore than the non-blindfolded guy, unless they're noisy enough. Even then, I'm still more likely to miss because I can't see. Meanwhile, the non-blindfolded guy would have advantage, because his opponent can't reliably block or dodge.

Edit: At best, it's a flaw that's hard to fix because the way the system is set up, it doesn't have a good compromise for how to deal with it.

[Pelle]

Most of these complains seems to be about lack of rules than the rules themselves. Are there any actual rules that don't make sense, neither realistically nor considering the design philosophy?

I don't want more granular rules, I want less! If I wanted to simulate things "accurately" I could play 3.5. If something doesn't make sense in the context, at least 5e gives you the freedom to make a ruling otherwise.

[Rogerdodger557]

That's what I get for posting without coffee. I meant to say perception. :)



Enough said.

[Knaight]

Realistically, yes. Because the disadvantage indicates what's making it hard for you. If the other blindfolded guy is moving, I've got no clue where he is anymore than the non-blindfolded guy, unless they're noisy enough. Even then, I'm still more likely to miss because I can't see. Meanwhile, the non-blindfolded guy would have advantage, because his opponent can't reliably block or dodge.

The point is that the non-blindfolded guy should also be at an advantage defensively and thus be harder to hit compared to another blindfolded opponent, which doesn't come across in the rules - although that's more a side effect of static defenses that don't take weapons into account than anything else. It's one of the areas where advantage/disadvantage cancelling and the absence of stacking gets weird.

[Easy_Lee]

unless you're standing 5 feet away or less, in which case the athlete becomes harder to hit than previously, while the paralyzed guy becomes easier to hit.

Ranged attacks have disadvantage within five feet against hostile opponents that aren't incapacitated. If you were within five feet of both of them, they would become equally easy to hit. Otherwise, the blindfolded dude who's sprinting and up to your full range away is easier to hit than the guy lying on the ground next to you.

[Laurefindel]

I don't think there are rules I find dumb. Some I would have done differently, but I can usually see why they did them like that.

IMO, it's more the absence of rules that create "dumb" situations, or use of rules that have been purposefully made overly generous for the sake of quick and easy play that bug me (such as easily swimming, let alone staying afloat, in full armour, holding your breath for several minutes while performing exhaustive activities, falling 50 feet head-first on hard rock and walking away as if nothing happened, carrying excessive loads without breaking a sweat).

While I understand D&D does not attempt to be a simulationist system, I wish there was more variant ways to dial down the superhero factor which is pretty high by RaW.

That being said, I'm very happy with the current ruleset. Complaints I have are nick-picks in an otherwise brilliant (IMO) game.

[SharkForce]

Ranged attacks have disadvantage within five feet against hostile opponents that aren't incapacitated. If you were within five feet of both of them, they would become equally easy to hit. Otherwise, the blindfolded dude who's sprinting and up to your full range away is easier to hit than the guy lying on the ground next to you.

meaning the blindfolded guy, who you previously had advantage to hit, is now being attacked with normal rolls (and is harder to hit than before) while the paralyzed prone guy, who previously cancelled out the advantage from being paralyzed by being prone, no longer gets that advantage (it isn't ranged attacks that are at disadvantage to hit, it's attacks from more than 5 feet away)... making the paralyzed guy easier to hit than before.

which leads to another fun one:

imagine you're fighting a dragon that is using its superior reach to strike at you from the air. if you drop prone, it either must come into your range, or it takes disadvantage.

also fun: a creature with 10 foot reach does not make it any harder for a ranged attacker standing 10 feet away to hit anything.

[Demonslayer666]

Functionally, what should happen if new combatants try to surprise people already in combat? The only thing this could possibly affect is the rogue's assassinate ability, right? You could still be attacking from hidden so have advantage, what more is needed?

Giving advantage seems rather lackluster when you compare a pre-combat ambush to a mid-combat one. Nothing happens to the opponent, except they get hit easier in mid-combat, yet a pre-combat ambush allows for the possibility to act twice before they get to act.

[Easy_Lee]

meaning the blindfolded guy, who you previously had advantage to hit, is now being attacked with normal rolls (and is harder to hit than before) while the paralyzed prone guy, who previously cancelled out the advantage from being paralyzed by being prone, no longer gets that advantage (it isn't ranged attacks that are at disadvantage to hit, it's attacks from more than 5 feet away)... making the paralyzed guy easier to hit than before.

Ranged attacks have disadvantage against targets within 5', even if those targets are stunned (not paralyzed since that includes incapacitated), so just change it to stunned. The blind guy is also able to interfere with the ranged attacks in spite of his blindness if he's within 5'. So in that case, they'd be equally easy to hit.

What is it about ranged attacks and disadvantage that always gets people to argue? There's nothing to argue with here. The mechanics are clear. They're just dumb in this instance.

[Pex]

Tried out a new DM today. In his game you can not just climb a tree. You have to make an athletics check. To perceive anything always takes an action. You can not happen to notice.

The competency of my character to do anything went down because of who is DM this day.

The DM is enjoyable to play with. He's not a tyrant and allowed for strategic use of a light spell to grant advantage on Perception checks. He encourages roleplaying a lot.

It's still annoying as heck the lack of defined skill DCs means I don't know what I can do. The fault lies with 5E, not the DM.

[Easy_Lee]

It's still annoying as heck the lack of defined skill DCs means I don't know what I can do. The fault lies with 5E, not the DM.

I've participated in a lot of threads about that before. 5e gives us a table for what easy, hard, etc. skill checks look like, and that's it. Then the DM is free to decide how hard he thinks a given check is with no reference point. That last point is important, as it frequently causes issues where the players and DM make different assumptions about the difficulty of a task.

At a minimum, I think 5e should have given two examples of checks for each skill. That wouldn't take too long (5e doesn't have many skills), and would have given everyone a reference point for how difficult takes should be in 5e.

[Dudewithknives]

I've participated in a lot of threads about that before. 5e gives us a table for what easy, hard, etc. skill checks look like, and that's it. Then the DM is free to decide how hard he thinks a given check is with no reference point. That last point is important, as it frequently causes issues where the players and DM make different assumptions about the difficulty of a task.

At a minimum, I think 5e should have given two examples of checks for each skill. That wouldn't take too long (5e doesn't have many skills), and would have given everyone a reference point for how difficult takes should be in 5e.

This also causes issues because I have see DMs use different target numbers for the exact same action.

In a game from 2 weeks ago, at one point the group had to scoot around the thin ledge on the edge of a cliff.

I was playing an elf rogue with no armor on at the time so the DM said my dc was 10.

Our Dwarven cleric was next in line but his dc was 15 because dwarves are shorter and he has armor on.

Yeah, it is not end well.

[Luccan]

This also causes issues because I have see DMs use different target numbers for the exact same action.

In a game from 2 weeks ago, at one point the group had to scoot around the thin ledge on the edge of a cliff.

I was playing an elf rogue with no armor on at the time so the DM said my dc was 10.

Our Dwarven cleric was next in line but his dc was 15 because dwarves are shorter and he has armor on.

Yeah, it is not end well.

That doesn't even make sense. Maybe he should have had disadvantage for wearing heavy armor, at most, but the whole point of PCs having variable skill is that their chances of making a DC are effected by that. Not by a DC that changes to make it harder for PCs that are already going to have a harder time at a task.

[Pelle]

This also causes issues because I have see DMs use different target numbers for the exact same action.

In a game from 2 weeks ago, at one point the group had to scoot around the thin ledge on the edge of a cliff.

I was playing an elf rogue with no armor on at the time so the DM said my dc was 10.

Our Dwarven cleric was next in line but his dc was 15 because dwarves are shorter and he has armor on.

Yeah, it is not end well.

I don't necessarily see that as a problem, depending on how the situation was presented. If you are crossing a thin ledge, with very limited space, of course it can matter if you are a skinny dude, or a big chunky dude. 10-15 might be too big range though.

Similarly, if a small halfling threatens to beat up someone, the Cha(intimidate) dc should be higher then if a big strong half orc did the same.

Different circumstances, different dc.

[DarkKnightJin]

I don't necessarily see that as a problem, depending on how the situation was presented. If you are crossing a thin ledge, with very limited space, of course it can matter if you are a skinny dude, or a big chunky dude. 10-15 might be too big range though.

Similarly, if a small halfling threatens to beat up someone, the Cha(intimidate) dc should be higher then if a big strong half orc did the same.

Different circumstances, different dc.

I agree. The DC for the Dwarf in clunky armor SHOULD be a bit higher than for the nimble elf that isn't being distracted by his armor getting in the way. A diiference of 10 to 15 is a bit harsh. I personally might've made the DC 12. 13 at the highest. And give advantage if they get smart and apply clever use of rope to help those crossing from tumbling down.

[Sigreid]

The flip side of this is that you're saying that if you're wearing a blindfold, it should be just as difficult to hit someone who can see you and is actively defending as it is to hit someone who is blindfolded themselves.

I think of it more as simplifying the basic idea that if both are blind the odds on who wins isn't any different than if both can see.

[Pex]

That doesn't even make sense. Maybe he should have had disadvantage for wearing heavy armor, at most, but the whole point of PCs having variable skill is that their chances of making a DC are effected by that. Not by a DC that changes to make it harder for PCs that are already going to have a harder time at a task.


I don't necessarily see that as a problem, depending on how the situation was presented. If you are crossing a thin ledge, with very limited space, of course it can matter if you are a skinny dude, or a big chunky dude. 10-15 might be too big range though.

Similarly, if a small halfling threatens to beat up someone, the Cha(intimidate) dc should be higher then if a big strong half orc did the same.

Different circumstances, different dc.


This also causes issues because I have see DMs use different target numbers for the exact same action.

In a game from 2 weeks ago, at one point the group had to scoot around the thin ledge on the edge of a cliff.

I was playing an elf rogue with no armor on at the time so the DM said my dc was 10.

Our Dwarven cleric was next in line but his dc was 15 because dwarves are shorter and he has armor on.

Yeah, it is not end well.


I agree. The DC for the Dwarf in clunky armor SHOULD be a bit higher than for the nimble elf that isn't being distracted by his armor getting in the way. A diiference of 10 to 15 is a bit harsh. I personally might've made the DC 12. 13 at the highest. And give advantage if they get smart and apply clever use of rope to help those crossing from tumbling down.

Oh look, different DMs have different interpretations of how a task should be resolved for the same task. The competency of the dwarf depends on who is DM that day. Thanks 5E!

Clarification: I in no way mean any criticism against those whom I quoted.

[Sigreid]

Oh look, different DMs have different interpretations of how a task should be resolved for the same task. The competency of the dwarf depends on who is DM that day. Thanks 5E!

Clarification: I in no way mean any criticism against those whom I quoted.

Yep. In my opinion this is a natural consequence of a game designed to be run by and for people rather than a computer simulation.

[Aett_Thorn]

Yep. In my opinion this is a natural consequence of a game designed to be run by and for people rather than a computer simulation.

I agree with this. As long as individual DMs are internally consistent, then this is fine. DMs should be able to react and improvise in a good roleplaying system.

[Pelle]

Oh look, different DMs have different interpretations of how a task should be resolved for the same task. The competency of the dwarf depends on who is DM that day. Thanks 5E!


You say this like it's a bad thing :smalltongue: If you are switching DMs all the time, I understand this can be confusing. For me the flexibility is a benfit.

You can still have the same issue in 3.5 by the way, different DMs ending on different dcs. Climbing past here is dc15, if you are extra wide it is +1 dc, if you are short you can't reach those grips +2 dc, bulky equipment +1 etc... Maybe easier to predict as a player, but still open for variations and takes a lot more time.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I agree with this. As long as individual DMs are internally consistent, then this is fine. DMs should be able to react and improvise in a good roleplaying system.

Very much agreed. For me, a large part of this is that your idea of the tone/mechanics of your setting may be very different from my idea of the tone/mechanics of my setting even if we're nominally playing in the same setting (FR, etc). If all people are persuadable on a DC of X, everywhere across all possible interpretations of all settings, then that drastically homogenizes the possible adventures. As long as I'm setting DCs consistent with my descriptions in my setting and you're consistent setting DCs consistent with your descriptions in your setting, everything's copacetic.

Note that these DCs may not be consistent from event to event--not all wooden doors are the same. Some are half-rotted, some are made of ironwood. Some were hung by goblins (who don't make very good doors). What's important is that this information (basic difficulty) is easily extracted from the DM's description of the scene. If you describe a rotten wooden door that's hanging by one hinge, it should be much easier to break than a thick ironwood door set into a stone frame with heavy hinges. Same with most other checks. DMs should make clear what difficulty (easy, medium or hard, etc) applies from their descriptions and be consistent with the fiction. Exceptions should be exceptional and give rise to further investigation (usually, there's magic involved).

Demanding a fixed table of "situation X -> DC Y" limits the possibilities to those things on that table only. Those may not even be consistent from setting to setting, leading to dissonance. Imagine a setting where metal is cursed, common and weak--all the strong stuff is made out of special wood. A wooden door would be much harder than a metal door. Fixed DC tables remove that possibility (or have to be thrown out, leading to the complaints all over again).

[Zalabim]

unless you're standing 5 feet away or less, in which case the athlete becomes harder to hit than previously, while the paralyzed guy becomes easier to hit.


Ranged attacks have disadvantage within five feet against hostile opponents that aren't incapacitated. If you were within five feet of both of them, they would become equally easy to hit. Otherwise, the blindfolded dude who's sprinting and up to your full range away is easier to hit than the guy lying on the ground next to you.


Ranged attacks have disadvantage against targets within 5', even if those targets are stunned (not paralyzed since that includes incapacitated), so just change it to stunned. The blind guy is also able to interfere with the ranged attacks in spite of his blindness if he's within 5'. So in that case, they'd be equally easy to hit.

What is it about ranged attacks and disadvantage that always gets people to argue? There's nothing to argue with here. The mechanics are clear. They're just dumb in this instance.

I might have missed one in here, but the rule is you have disadvantage on all ranged attacks if an enemy is within 5' of you that is not incapacitated and can see you. It doesn't matter where your target is. Stunned also includes incapacitated, so paralyzed guy on the ground, stunned guy in general, and blindfolded athlete are all incapable of interfering with your ranged attacks.

[Luccan]

Yep. In my opinion this is a natural consequence of a game designed to be run by and for people rather than a computer simulation.

That is certainly true, though the lack of any examples in the actual rules means that a DM has to completely make it up and a PC has no clue what they are capable of until they actually attempt something (barring having played with the DM before or the DM telling them up front, which is possible). I think 3.5 is better with this. DMs had an idea of what the game thought PCs of a certain skill could achieve and could adjust from there, if need be (or it was a simple climb check, usually you could just use DCs straight from the book).

I think the main problem for a lot of people is that 5e's lack of guidance means that a 5th level rogue can range from a stealthy ninja-assassin to an incompetent bumbling in the dark, based on unguided, arbitrary DCs set by separate DMs. But now I feel I've stumbled onto a point of contention that never gets resolved.

[Sigreid]

That is certainly true, though the lack of any examples in the actual rules means that a DM has to completely make it up and a PC has no clue what they are capable of until they actually attempt something (barring having played with the DM before or the DM telling them up front, which is possible). I think 3.5 is better with this. DMs had an idea of what the game thought PCs of a certain skill could achieve and could adjust from there, if need be (or it was a simple climb check, usually you could just use DCs straight from the book).

I think the main problem for a lot of people is that 5e's lack of guidance means that a 5th level rogue can range from a stealthy ninja-assassin to an incompetent bumbling in the dark, based on unguided, arbitrary DCs set by separate DMs. But now I feel I've stumbled onto a point of contention that never gets resolved.

I guess that depends on the DM as well. Players can ask me "How hard do I think this will be?"

[snickersnax]

I guess that depends on the DM as well. Players can ask me "How hard do I think this will be?"

That'll be a DC 10 intelligence check... :smallsmile:

[Dudewithknives]

That'll be a DC 10 intelligence check... :smallsmile:

Or maybe 15, if you are an orc, because you know they do not go to school much.

[Sigreid]

That'll be a DC 10 intelligence check... :smallsmile:

More of "The cliff looks like a moderately difficult climb, but with your skill you think it should be fairly easy". Moderately difficult tells him that most people would struggle, but could do it. The with your skill part tells him that his athletics skill leaves him with little to worry about.

[Jormengand]

The trouble with DM-decides with no real guidelines is that you have no idea how effective a skill is when you're taking it short of asking the DM while making your character for examples of what the DCs are. I don't know, when I have perception proficiency, whether that means "Likely to hear someone whispering from the other side of the room" or "Has a real chance to hear someone whispering from the other side of the room" or "Practically guaranteed to hear someone whispering from the other side of the room." I have no idea what my character's capabilities are, but in 3.5, I know that if I have 4 ranks in listen and 14 wisdom, my chance to hear people whispering from the other side of a room is about 50%, with variation depending on how big the room is, not the DM. I know whether or not I'm building a character who actually matches my concept.

This is, of course, why I never DM 5e without having the 3.5 DCs to hand - to take into account the fact that 5e characters are generally suckier than 3.5 ones, any DC greater than 10 becomes 5+([original DC]/2) - which means that my players actually know how hard it is to do what they're trying to do.

[UrielAwakened]

DC for skills depends on who is DM that day.

Point Buy forbids an 18 at first level.

Concentration mechanic for spells. At least let the spellcaster concentrate on more than one spell every X levels, pick a suitable X.

Wish spell is a glorified Anyspell, punishing the player for doing anything with it including benign things such as undoing a harmful effect that specifically calls out Wish can fix it or even the listed examples of uses.

All 9th level spells are basically useless, down to DM fiat, or are named Meteor Swarm. It's dumb.

[KorvinStarmast]

Tried out a new DM today. In his game you can not just climb a tree. You have to make an athletics check. To perceive anything always takes an action. You can not happen to notice. Sorry, he's not using a baked in rule called "Passive Perception. That's not the game, that the DM not using a rule that is clearly spelled out (though now and again annoying to implement).

It's still annoying as heck the lack of defined skill DCs means I don't know what I can do. The fault lies with 5E, not the DM. Part of the fault lies with your DM, Pex. From using ability scores in the PHB:

The GM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results. There is no reason to default to "climbing a tree has an inbuilt chance of failure" so the question is: what makes failure or failure to climb interesting? Why is that presumption made?
If this DM is otherwise fun to play with, I'd suggest that you stop complaining and enjoy. Your call as it's your fun that's at stake (of course).
Yep. In my opinion this is a natural consequence of a game designed to be run by and for people rather than a computer simulation. Yep.

[Sigreid]

The trouble with DM-decides with no real guidelines is that you have no idea how effective a skill is when you're taking it short of asking the DM while making your character for examples of what the DCs are. I don't know, when I have perception proficiency, whether that means "Likely to hear someone whispering from the other side of the room" or "Has a real chance to hear someone whispering from the other side of the room" or "Practically guaranteed to hear someone whispering from the other side of the room." I have no idea what my character's capabilities are, but in 3.5, I know that if I have 4 ranks in listen and 14 wisdom, my chance to hear people whispering from the other side of a room is about 50%, with variation depending on how big the room is, not the DM. I know whether or not I'm building a character who actually matches my concept.

This is, of course, why I never DM 5e without having the 3.5 DCs to hand - to take into account the fact that 5e characters are generally suckier than 3.5 ones, any DC greater than 10 becomes 5+([original DC]/2) - which means that my players actually know how hard it is to do what they're trying to do.

Ok, this is just me, but it seems to work for my group. I set DC based on how hard it would be for a totally average person with no special training, skill, or talent. I don't base them on the character's skills as that's an arms race I found to be a problem in 3.5. You never wound up feeling like the master of a skill you invested in because DC went up at the same rate I could invest.

[UrielAwakened]

I agree with this. As long as individual DMs are internally consistent, then this is fine. DMs should be able to react and improvise in a good roleplaying system.

This is some serious stockholm syndrome.

Good tabletop systems have rules for this sort of thing so games are consistent between DMs. Why does D&D constantly get forgiven for giving DMs no rules on how to actually DM?

[Sigreid]

This is some serious stockholm syndrome.

Good tabletop systems have rules for this sort of thing so games are consistent between DMs. Why does D&D constantly get forgiven for giving DMs no rules on how to actually DM?

Speaking for myself, I prefer to have a framework I can work my own way as opposed to the "thou shalt" mentality of minutiae rules.

[KorvinStarmast]

Why does D&D constantly get forgiven for giving DMs no rules on how to actually DM? Because for 40+ years, that approach has worked. That's why. I'll also point out that "rules for how to DM" is antithetical to the original premise for the game. For the referee, it's always been guidelines going back to Gygax and Arneson. As described by GG, Kask, Arneson, others from the early years, it's a wide open game.

From a letter to the authors of Alarums and Excursions

Dave and I disagree on how to handle any number of things, and both of our campaigns differ from the "rules" found in D&D. If the time ever comes when all aspects of fantasy are covered and the vast majority of its players agree on how the game should be played, D&D will have become staid and boring indeed. Sorry, but I don't believe that there is anything desirable in having various campaigns playing similarly to one another. D&D is supposed to offer a challenge to the imagination and to do so in many ways. Perhaps the most important is in regard to what the probabilities of a given situation are. If players know what all of the monster parameters are, what can be expected in a given situation, exactly what will happen to them if they perform thus and so, most of the charm of the game is gone. Frankly, the reason I enjoy playing in Dave Arneson's campaign is that I do not know his treatments of monsters and suchlike, so I must keep thinking and reasoning in order to "survive". Now, for example, if I made a proclamation from on high which suited Mr. Johnstone, it would certainly be quite unacceptable to hundreds or even thousands of other players. My answer is, and has always been, if you don't like the way I do it, change the bloody rules to suit yourself and your players. D&D enthusiasts are far too individualistic and imaginative a bunch to be in agreement, and I certainly refuse to play god for them -- except as a referee in my own campaign where they jolly well better toe the mark.

Each campaign should be a "variant", and there is no "official interpretation" from me or anyone else. If a game of "Dungeons and Beavers" suits a group, all I say is more power to them, for every fine referee runs his own variant of D&D anyway. Each of us likes more or less definition and detail, else Dragon Mag and all sorts of supplemental stuff would never have been published.
As Arneson once said: rules lawyers are the enemy. That someone demands there be rules for how to DM, rather than guidelines/principles, carries the faint odor of a rules lawyer ...

[UrielAwakened]

Who's talking about minutiae?

I'm talking about actually giving guidance on how to run a game and drive a narrative forward, which other roleplaying systems do much better than D&D.

You know what Dungeon World's system is? Roll 2d6, add modifiers. On a 10 you fully succeed. On 7-9 you partially succeed and have to deal with complications. On a 2-6 you just have complications.

Wow that's hard to remember.

How hard would that have been for Wizards to sit down and figure out, especially with such a highly-touted bounded accuracy system?


Because for 40+ years, that approach has worked. That's why.

Because the hobby isn't that big and most people don't bother to branch out. Think about how much bigger the hobby could be if the biggest company in the world that still publishes roleplaying books actually provided decent instructions to aspiring DMs.

There's a reason it's so hard to find DMs, you know. And the Dungeon Master's Guide is the reason. Stuff that should be codified is instead left to DM fiat.

[Jormengand]

Ok, this is just me, but it seems to work for my group. I set DC based on how hard it would be for a totally average person with no special training, skill, or talent.

Right, but you have no real idea how hard that is most of the time, because your perceptions of how hard something that you may never have done is for a person you may never have seen attempt it are going to be skewed, especially when it's possibly something that doesn't actually exist in real life

Imagine if the combat system were the same - rather than clearly-defined monsters and abilities, the DM made up, based on their opinion of how hard a boar/succubus/eldritch horror should be to fight, what their AC was, what the saving throw DC was, and so forth. Imagine having vague rulings rather than rules.

Or, if you're just going to be allowed to invent your own rules on the spot, why are you bothering to play D&D and not Roll to Dodge?

[Theodoxus]

So, if you don't DM as per the DMG and only the DMG, you're not DMing?

If other systems provide excellent rules and examples on how to run a game in general, and obviously their game specifically, but you're incapable of incorporating those lessons into a different game, it's the game's fault?

I've stolen concepts, ideas, rules, reactions and backgrounds from other games. Warping the Savage Worlds general concepts to fit 5E isn't that hard. If one wants to run a game, any game, there's a metric crapton of information at your fingertips (we're online, obviously...) Read. Research. Heck, run a freaking game sans all the stuff and learn on the fly.

We're not professionals (if you are, hit me up, I'd love to join a guild) but seriously, no ones paying (outside of the occasional noms brought to the table by thankful players) to play. Without outside knowledge - a college class in improv; a lifetime RPing; being a natural extrovert - no one tries their hand at DMing and knocks it out the park the first time.

But it can be a ton of fun. It can stretch you as a person... and there's zero need for codified rules from WotC or anyone else... because they know if that's what you need, it's out there.

Besides, with the ration of BS spewed towards the devs by 90% of posters online, I'm a little shocked you'd even want those so-called bumbling idiots to write up a how-to on DMing... I can't imagine the trolling they'd get if they tried that little project.

Leave training to the other amateurs, like Angry DM and Matt Mercer and Chris Perkins. :smallwink:

[KorvinStarmast]

I'm talking about actually giving guidance on how to run a game and drive a narrative forward, which other roleplaying systems do much better than D&D. OK, one can borrow from those when one DM's.

You know what Dungeon World's system is? Roll 2d6, add modifiers. On a 10 you fully succeed. On 7-9 you partially succeed and have to deal with complications. On a 2-6 you just have complications. Wow that's hard to remember. Funny, 2d6 was also used in Chainmail and Panzerblitz for combat resolution. So what?
There's a reason it's so hard to find DMs, you know. And the Dungeon Master's Guide is the reason. The 5e DMG is pretty good, particularly as compared to the first DMG that was ever published. The decision to put more of the "core" rules in the PHB was also a good idea. Have you actually read the whole 5e DMG? It's got a wealth of material, and it has obviously borrowed some ideas from other RPG's. I started DMing in the late 1970's. If I had had the 5e DMG then? Wow, what a resource! We didn't. We were working without a net, but we somehow figured out this DMing thing. (Hint: it's about people not rules).

As to why there aren't more DM's, I'll offer that the DMG isn't the problem. It's the dedication required to be one. (Not to mention that people like Angry GM and a few others have some very good web resources for some of the how to ... based on experience). Being a DM has always involved work. Maybe a larger percentage of the current generation is less willing to work, or, maybe people actually have less free time per capita. The ease with which one can play a CRPG without having to work contributes to this, but that's a different kind of fun.

[Sigreid]

Right, but you have no real idea how hard that is most of the time, because your perceptions of how hard something that you may never have done is for a person you may never have seen attempt it are going to be skewed, especially when it's possibly something that doesn't actually exist in real life

Imagine if the combat system were the same - rather than clearly-defined monsters and abilities, the DM made up, based on their opinion of how hard a boar/succubus/eldritch horror should be to fight, what their AC was, what the saving throw DC was, and so forth. Imagine having vague rulings rather than rules.

Or, if you're just going to be allowed to invent your own rules on the spot, why are you bothering to play D&D and not Roll to Dodge?

Because I'm the DM? Every task is as hard for an average person as I think it should be. I'm sorry, from where I'm standing I seem to be incapable of understanding the issue.

[HidesHisEyes]

DC for skills depends on who is DM that day.

Point Buy forbids an 18 at first level.

Concentration mechanic for spells. At least let the spellcaster concentrate on more than one spell every X levels, pick a suitable X.

Wish spell is a glorified Anyspell, punishing the player for doing anything with it including benign things such as undoing a harmful effect that specifically calls out Wish can fix it or even the listed examples of uses.

1) Pretty much the whole gameplay experience depends on who the DM is. There are clear guidelines on how to set a DC though.

2) The way I see it, rolling stats ALLOWS an 18 at first level.

3) I like the concentration rule because it means you don't get tied up with a big list of buffing spells that become a baked-in, non-negotiable part of the power curve and which add to the problem of spellcasters being the be all and end all. Increasing the cap at higher levels would just delay this problem.

4) I agree with you on this one. I've never played in or run a game with Wish in it, but it looks like you describe it.

[UrielAwakened]

So, if you don't DM as per the DMG and only the DMG, you're not DMing?

If other systems provide excellent rules and examples on how to run a game in general, and obviously their game specifically, but you're incapable of incorporating those lessons into a different game, it's the game's fault?

I've stolen concepts, ideas, rules, reactions and backgrounds from other games. Warping the Savage Worlds general concepts to fit 5E isn't that hard. If one wants to run a game, any game, there's a metric crapton of information at your fingertips (we're online, obviously...) Read. Research. Heck, run a freaking game sans all the stuff and learn on the fly.

We're not professionals (if you are, hit me up, I'd love to join a guild) but seriously, no ones paying (outside of the occasional noms brought to the table by thankful players) to play. Without outside knowledge - a college class in improv; a lifetime RPing; being a natural extrovert - no one tries their hand at DMing and knocks it out the park the first time.

But it can be a ton of fun. It can stretch you as a person... and there's zero need for codified rules from WotC or anyone else... because they know if that's what you need, it's out there.

Besides, with the ration of BS spewed towards the devs by 90% of posters online, I'm a little shocked you'd even want those so-called bumbling idiots to write up a how-to on DMing... I can't imagine the trolling they'd get if they tried that little project.

Leave training to the other amateurs, like Angry DM and Matt Mercer and Chris Perkins. :smallwink:

The entire point is the game's rules are bad and should handle that. D&D is just not THAT well designed. The burden of fixing their mistakes should not fall on amateur DMs. They get paid to write the rules so they should just do it well. Why is it my job to fix their mistakes? Why do I have to read a dozen different RPGs published over the last decade to find out Wizards has adopted basically no tenants of modern game design? Why can't they do that legwork and build a better product?

The answer, of course, is there's no incentive. They can sell an inferior product and people on forums like this will defend it anyway. So why put in the time and effort to do so? Roleplaying isn't that big of a hobby and people just aren't that well-read in it to know what a raw deal they're getting on the DM front.


Because I'm the DM? Every task is as hard for an average person as I think it should be. I'm sorry, from where I'm standing I seem to be incapable of understanding the issue.

What if you're bad at that?

What if you straight-up don't know what an average person can do?

Because it's pretty common from what I've seen on this forum alone for people to vastly underestimate what "average' strength and dexterity are.

[xroads]

When you ready a spell, you cast it as normal but hold its energy, which you release with your reaction when the trigger occurs.

I'm not a fan of this one. If for a example, a fighter holds a sword swing for a trigger that doesn't happen, they've only lost an action. But if a caster holds a spell for a trigger that doesn't happen, they've lost an action AND a spell slot. :smallannoyed:

[LordFluffy]

A good reason not to allow proficiency? While I obviously have no clue exactly why the designers chose to incorporate this rule, I can guess...

1. Fluff? It's a totally alien weapon to the setting. Nobody would have proficiency with it. Especially since proficiency usually comes from training and practice. Furthermore, it's a difficult weapon to master.
Harder than learning how to fire a crossbow 11 times in 6 seconds?

It's not rocket surgery.

[LordFluffy]

3 members of the party are hidden. One is standing in plain sight, making some soon to be dead guys comfortable. No matter how skilled the decoy is, the victims will never be surprised.
If any of the attackers have to close more than 6', they're no longer hidden either, despite being behind their intended victims, no matter how stealthy.
If they're all equally dexterous, there isn't any greater chance for the hidden attackers go first.
If one of the victims gets grappled, he can still it his attacker with a greataxe.


Just going by RAW, of course.

[Knaight]

This is some serious stockholm syndrome.

Good tabletop systems have rules for this sort of thing so games are consistent between DMs. Why does D&D constantly get forgiven for giving DMs no rules on how to actually DM?
Consistency between GMs isn't a goal of all good systems. As just one example, take almost any rules light to medium generic system.


Who's talking about minutiae?

I'm talking about actually giving guidance on how to run a game and drive a narrative forward, which other roleplaying systems do much better than D&D.

You know what Dungeon World's system is? Roll 2d6, add modifiers. On a 10 you fully succeed. On 7-9 you partially succeed and have to deal with complications. On a 2-6 you just have complications.
Sure, and that works for Dungeon World. You know what Fate's system is? Characters have a set of skills rated on the trait ladder, plus dice that go from -4 to +4 and correspond to moving up and down that same ladder. The GM decides on a difficulty for their tasks from that same ladder, and the characters roll their skills against it. There's no list of


Because the hobby isn't that big and most people don't bother to branch out. Think about how much bigger the hobby could be if the biggest company in the world that still publishes roleplaying books actually provided decent instructions to aspiring DMs.

There's a reason it's so hard to find DMs, you know. And the Dungeon Master's Guide is the reason. Stuff that should be codified is instead left to DM fiat.
That's what drives off people who like highly codified systems. Personally D&D drove me off for the other reason - there was just too much that was codified, and the mechanical weight of all those rules was enough that I didn't want to deal with it. Explicit skill DC tables for every skill was a not insignificant part of that.

As for what drives people off, I'd argue that there are two big factors. One is certain people within the hobby, the other is the way that there is one visible game that is frequently treated as the entire hobby, and which is pretty esoteric in a lot of ways by hobby standards. If the only entrance point into reading novels was House of Leaves and most people who read it and disliked it left without ever knowing there were other books it would be a vastly smaller hobby.

[LordFluffy]

You can't make a Dex Fighter with a spear like Oberyn Martel from GoT or Prince Nuada from Hellboy II. No finesse-able spears. Also quarterstaff.

Neither fighter you mentioned was a weakling. Their dexterity still counted for not being hit. Oberyn was using reach to his advantage.

If you multiclassed into fighter/class that gets disengage as a bonus action, you could use a reach glaive and get the same effect. You just might get +2 instead of +4 to damage with your weapon.

[Pex]

Sorry, he's not using a baked in rule called "Passive Perception. That's not the game, that the DM not using a rule that is clearly spelled out (though now and again annoying to implement).

It's not about passive perception. It's the PC wanting to notice something.


Part of the fault lies with your DM, Pex. From using ability scores in the PHB:
There is no reason to default to "climbing a tree has an inbuilt chance of failure" so the question is: what makes failure or failure to climb interesting? Why is that presumption made?
If this DM is otherwise fun to play with, I'd suggest that you stop complaining and enjoy. Your call as it's your fun that's at stake (of course). Yep.

My ability to climb a tree depends on who is DM that day. Either my character can always do it or I need to roll of varying DC, and in this particular case it was DC 15! Wasn't even my character who climbed the tree, but I was still annoyed he had to roll. I was climbing trees in my backyard when I was 4 years old.


Consistency between GMs isn't a goal of all good systems. As just one example, take almost any rules light to medium generic system.

I shouldn't have to relearn how to play the game because I play with a new DM. I'm in my 6th Pathfinder campaign I've ever played. 6 different DMs. Campaign tone all different. What is consistent? The rules. I always know what my character can do, cannot do, and have a chance to do. Different classes. Different roleplaying motives. I never have to ask the DM what rules are we using this time. Paladin smite evil always works the same, unlike 5E vis a vis great weapon style. I always know how to identify a monster, unlike 5E where it's DM whim if I can even try let alone varying DCs of the same creature in different campaigns. I always know my character's ability to climb a rope, unlike 5E where it's from autosuccess to DC how hard the DM thinks it is regardless of my proficiency status.

[Easy_Lee]

That'll be a DC 10 intelligence check... :smallsmile:

Good point. The rules are also unclear on exactly what requires a check and what doesn't. Does your character know his own capabilities? Ask your DM.

Regarding comments that this sort of thing happens in a tabletop, yes it does. But it wasn't nearly as big of a problem in past editions. Usually, there was a posted DC for every regular thing a player might want to do, and that gave DMs a reference point for the difficulty of other tasks.

Also, giving different characters different numbers to hit for the same check is generally stupid. A dwarf in armor shouldn't have to roll higher on his acrobatics check to walk on a ledge than a nimble elf. Why? Because the elf's superior nimbleness is already represented by his higher dexterity and acrobatics score. Seriously, what was that DM thinking?

[Knaight]

I shouldn't have to relearn how to play the game because I play with a new DM. I'm in my 6th Pathfinder campaign I've ever played. 6 different DMs. Campaign tone all different. What is consistent? The rules. I always know what my character can do, cannot do, and have a chance to do. Different classes. Different roleplaying motives. I never have to ask the DM what rules are we using this time. Paladin smite evil always works the same, unlike 5E vis a vis great weapon style. I always know how to identify a monster, unlike 5E where it's DM whim if I can even try let alone varying DCs of the same creature in different campaigns. I always know my character's ability to climb a rope, unlike 5E where it's from autosuccess to DC how hard the DM thinks it is regardless of my proficiency status.

You've made this clear. That doesn't mean the systems are bad though, just that you don't like them - and if the definition of a good system includes being liked bye everybody then it doesn't exist. Meanwhile I'd be downright bored by these games well before the sixth campaign, because I like having more flexibility in terms of how the rules are implemented and that supporting different settings and the like. This can mean just switching from highly concrete system to highly concrete system, but the higher flexibility that comes with higher GM adjudication also helps there. Different people are interested in different things, and I suspect that means that you would hate my games and I would hate yours.

[Sigreid]

What if you're bad at that?

What if you straight-up don't know what an average person can do?

Because it's pretty common from what I've seen on this forum alone for people to vastly underestimate what "average' strength and dexterity are.

I'm the DM. I don't need to know how difficult it would be for a real person to climb a particular real life cliff. I have to know how difficult I want it to be for an imaginary average person to climb this imaginary cliff.

[HidesHisEyes]

All 9th level spells are basically useless, down to DM fiat, or are named Meteor Swarm. It's dumb.

Yeah, not crazy about high level spells generally.


Who's talking about minutiae?

I'm talking about actually giving guidance on how to run a game and drive a narrative forward, which other roleplaying systems do much better than D&D.

You know what Dungeon World's system is? Roll 2d6, add modifiers. On a 10 you fully succeed. On 7-9 you partially succeed and have to deal with complications. On a 2-6 you just have complications.

Wow that's hard to remember.

How hard would that have been for Wizards to sit down and figure out, especially with such a highly-touted bounded accuracy system?



Because the hobby isn't that big and most people don't bother to branch out. Think about how much bigger the hobby could be if the biggest company in the world that still publishes roleplaying books actually provided decent instructions to aspiring DMs.

There's a reason it's so hard to find DMs, you know. And the Dungeon Master's Guide is the reason. Stuff that should be codified is instead left to DM fiat.

This is an interesting discussion. Personally I've never had a problem with picking a DC from 10 to 20 based on how hard I think a task would be. I think the mechanic is simple and elegant enough not to need more explanation, and I for one am happy that the rule books aren't full of tables and lists of modifiers. It's faster and easier for me to spend a couple of seconds weighing up how the weather, the number of branches and the light conditions affect the difficulty of climbing a tree, and then choose a DC, than to look all of it up in a book. Another DM might choose a slightly different number, yes, but I fail to see why that's a problem unless you really want it to be.

All of that said, I DO think that the rules are... perhaps not inadequate but certainly underdeveloped... in many situations. As I said, choosing a DC is easy. But choosing a CONSEQUENCE for not hitting that DC? I think that very often requires a foundational structure of rules that really only exists in combat. In combat, you fail a check and you've wasted your action, haven't damaged an enemy, have been affected by a spell and lost HP, whatever. All these other rules interact with the core mechanic to ensure it automatically matters whether you fail or succeed - but doesn't ever instakill a character or bring the game grinding to a halt if you fail. Looking at non-combat challenges, it's much harder to ensure that.

I'm quite able to choose a DC for a lock the rogue wants to pick without needing WotC to provide it for me. But when the player fails and asks "um, can I just try again?" the answer is not so clear, and I would have liked some guidance from the designers. As it turns out, through a combination of experience and help from online sources (again largely Angry GM), I have found decent answers to this kind of question. But yes, it would have been nice if the DMG had made some attempt at it. In light of the lack of guidance here, the claim that exploration and interaction are central "pillars" of gameplay alongside combat seems disingenuous, I have to say.

[Knaight]

I'm quite able to choose a DC for a lock the rogue wants to pick without needing WotC to provide it for me. But when the player fails and asks "um, can I just try again?" the answer is not so clear, and I would have liked some guidance from the designers. As it turns out, through a combination of experience and help from online sources (again largely Angry GM), I have found decent answers to this kind of question. But yes, it would have been nice if the DMG had made some attempt at it. In light of the lack of guidance here, the claim that exploration and interaction are central "pillars" of gameplay alongside combat seems disingenuous, I have to say.

I'd second all of this (with the one exception being that I'm not too impressed with Angry GM as a source). The other allegedly central pillars could have used more, in both rules and guidance. An example list of failure conditions (including things that explicitly give the DM options that might come across as unfair, such as the loss or breakage of equipment on failed rolls) would be nice. Some sort of system explaining how to relate NPCs would have been nice for new players. This could easily turn into yet more annoying minutia, as it did in the 3.x DMG, but it would still be nice.

[BurgerBeast]

Also, giving different characters different numbers to hit for the same check is generally stupid. A dwarf in armor shouldn't have to roll higher on his acrobatics check to walk on a ledge than a nimble elf. Why? Because the elf's superior nimbleness is already represented by his higher dexterity and acrobatics score. Seriously, what was that DM thinking?

This. A million times, this.

It's one thing to say the DM can apply the rules as he likes - but this is in a whole different league. This is a DM who fundamentally misunderstands the rationale behind the rule, or just doesn't care and is making up a different rule. This is cowboy-DM territory. It's ridiculous. This guy (or gal) is a loose cannon.

[Knaight]

This. A million times, this.

It's one thing to say the DM can apply the rules as he likes - but this is in a whole different league. This is a DM who fundamentally misunderstands the rationale behind the rule, or just doesn't care and is making up a different rule. This is cowboy-DM territory. It's ridiculous. This guy (or gal) is a loose cannon.

Changing the difficulty because of class, or race, or whatever else is generally working against the rules. However, armor check penalty was removed, which means that it doesn't automatically take effect. At the same time, it can fundamentally change the task, and thus a different DC can make sense. I wouldn't do so for balance, but for something like swim? Yeah, keeping your head above water is a fundamentally different task than keeping your head above water while wearing armor, which is a fundamentally different task than keeping your head above water while holding onto a log. If you've got equipment that makes it worse (armor) or better (empty barrel) assigning a different DC is totally reasonable.

[HidesHisEyes]

I'd second all of this (with the one exception being that I'm not too impressed with Angry GM as a source). The other allegedly central pillars could have used more, in both rules and guidance. An example list of failure conditions (including things that explicitly give the DM options that might come across as unfair, such as the loss or breakage of equipment on failed rolls) would be nice. Some sort of system explaining how to relate NPCs would have been nice for new players. This could easily turn into yet more annoying minutia, as it did in the 3.x DMG, but it would still be nice.

Yeah. I think the assumption is that the story, the scenario, combined with logic or common sense, provides all the consequences you need. You failed your Charisma check to bribe the guard, now you have to sneak or fight your way in. And often it does work like that, but not always.

Angry is very divisive and I don't always agree with him, but I think he's right in identifying time as the main problem here. The consequence for failing a check to pick a lock or search a room is that the party has wasted time, and the books don't even suggest a mechanical way of making time meaningful. You have to work it in to each and every adventure you run. Anything to do with travelling and exploring in the wilderness has similar problems.

[Zalabim]

This is some serious stockholm syndrome.

Good tabletop systems have rules for this sort of thing so games are consistent between DMs. Why does D&D constantly get forgiven for giving DMs no rules on how to actually DM?
D&D actually does give rules for how to DM. It's in the DMG which no one reads, so I'm not sure why they bothered. When they did give more rules than in 5E, if anyone bothered to read them, it was frequently to confirm that the rules were in fact as awful as they were told.

That is certainly true, though the lack of any examples in the actual rules means that a DM has to completely make it up and a PC has no clue what they are capable of until they actually attempt something (barring having played with the DM before or the DM telling them up front, which is possible). I think 3.5 is better with this. DMs had an idea of what the game thought PCs of a certain skill could achieve and could adjust from there, if need be (or it was a simple climb check, usually you could just use DCs straight from the book).

I think the main problem for a lot of people is that 5e's lack of guidance means that a 5th level rogue can range from a stealthy ninja-assassin to an incompetent bumbling in the dark, based on unguided, arbitrary DCs set by separate DMs. But now I feel I've stumbled onto a point of contention that never gets resolved.
Perhaps ironically, 3.5's rules for climbing are my go-to example for the absolutely awful way 3.5 handles skills. Conversely, Dexterity (stealth) in 5E has a precise and consistent DC to beat in order to be that stealthy ninja-assassin based on the passive Wisdom (perception) of the victim. There's some variance based on whether either side has advantage or disadvantage, but it has rules covering some situations that cause that as well.

This is an interesting discussion. Personally I've never had a problem with picking a DC from 10 to 20 based on how hard I think a task would be. I think the mechanic is simple and elegant enough not to need more explanation, and I for one am happy that the rule books aren't full of tables and lists of modifiers. It's faster and easier for me to spend a couple of seconds weighing up how the weather, the number of branches and the light conditions affect the difficulty of climbing a tree, and then choose a DC, than to look all of it up in a book. Another DM might choose a slightly different number, yes, but I fail to see why that's a problem unless you really want it to be.

All of that said, I DO think that the rules are... perhaps not inadequate but certainly underdeveloped... in many situations. As I said, choosing a DC is easy. But choosing a CONSEQUENCE for not hitting that DC? I think that very often requires a foundational structure of rules that really only exists in combat. In combat, you fail a check and you've wasted your action, haven't damaged an enemy, have been affected by a spell and lost HP, whatever. All these other rules interact with the core mechanic to ensure it automatically matters whether you fail or succeed - but doesn't ever instakill a character or bring the game grinding to a halt if you fail. Looking at non-combat challenges, it's much harder to ensure that.
So as not to understate this point, please forgive the following markups: This is where a lot of people need guidance.


I'm quite able to choose a DC for a lock the rogue wants to pick without needing WotC to provide it for me. But when the player fails and asks "um, can I just try again?" the answer is not so clear, and I would have liked some guidance from the designers. As it turns out, through a combination of experience and help from online sources (again largely Angry GM), I have found decent answers to this kind of question. But yes, it would have been nice if the DMG had made some attempt at it. In light of the lack of guidance here, the claim that exploration and interaction are central "pillars" of gameplay alongside combat seems disingenuous, I have to say.
As it turns out, the developers did give you an answer to this part already. If there's no consequence for failure other than time, then the rogue can take ten times as long and succeed. In essence, this roll would be to determine how long it takes, rather than whether it's possible.

[HidesHisEyes]

Changing the difficulty because of class, or race, or whatever else is generally working against the rules. However, armor check penalty was removed, which means that it doesn't automatically take effect. At the same time, it can fundamentally change the task, and thus a different DC can make sense. I wouldn't do so for balance, but for something like swim? Yeah, keeping your head above water is a fundamentally different task than keeping your head above water while wearing armor, which is a fundamentally different task than keeping your head above water while holding onto a log. If you've got equipment that makes it worse (armor) or better (empty barrel) assigning a different DC is totally reasonable.

I agree. Again, I find "analyse the task and assign a DC from 10 to 20 (maybe lower or higher in rare circumstances)" is all the guidance necessary for this. If something you'd normally think of as part of the character - like armour - factors into your DC decision then that's no big deal. As you say, race and skill proficiency are different because their mechanical effects mean they are already accounted for from the player's side of the equation.

[HidesHisEyes]

As it turns out, the developers did give you an answer to this part already. If there's no consequence for failure other than time, then the rogue can take ten times as long and succeed. In essence, this roll would be to determine how long it takes, rather than whether it's possible.

But "ten times as long" is still meaningless if time is meaningless, which by default it is.

Since you can use an action to pick a lock, presumably doing the ten times as long thing means it takes one minute. Assuming the room isn't filling up with water or anything, what is the consequence of spending a minute fiddling with a lock in a dungeon? If something happens after a certain amount of time - the ritual is complete or the villain escapes or whatever - then the DM marking that that minute has passed is enough. I feel that shoehorning such obvious time pressure into every adventure is going to start to seem very contrived very quickly, so some kind of general mechanical way of encouraging PCs not to dawdle in dungeons would have been nice.

Here is Angry's solution, if anyone is interested: http://theangrygm.com/hacking-time-in-dnd/

[Unoriginal]

Consequences are always context-dependent.

Taking a lot of time to unlock a door is generally consequence-free in a forgotten tomb filled with Undead that stay in their place unless disturbed. Taking a lot of time while you're trying to infiltrate the hobgoblin's fortress... it should generally lead to a fight with a patrol, possibly the alarm being raised. And if the mission is in a time limit (ex: stop the warlock's ritual), it's going to hurt to be blocked on a door for that long.

Other consequences for failing to unlock it might be:

-you cannot use this path anymore at all under normal circumstances (if there are different paths to take to continue the adventure).

-you have to wait for a creature to show up and open the door, demanding other checks or a fight

-you have to go and search the key in the rest of the building, demanding other checks or a fight(s)

[Dudewithknives]

Sorry if it has been mentioned but not really a rule, why does every class not at least come with the option of perception as a skill to be trained. I am not talking backgrounds.

[Unoriginal]

Sorry if it has been mentioned but not really a rule, why does every class not at least come with the option of perception as a skill to be trained. I am not talking backgrounds.

Because not all classes' trainings include activities that result in Perception proficiency?

[Vogonjeltz]

Realistically, yes. Because the disadvantage indicates what's making it hard for you. If the other blindfolded guy is moving, I've got no clue where he is anymore than the non-blindfolded guy, unless they're noisy enough. Even then, I'm still more likely to miss because I can't see. Meanwhile, the non-blindfolded guy would have advantage, because his opponent can't reliably block or dodge.

Edit: At best, it's a flaw that's hard to fix because the way the system is set up, it doesn't have a good compromise for how to deal with it.

Uh, no, if you were blindfolded it would be easier to hit something incapable of properly defending itself than it would be to hit something capable of properly defending itself.

Case A is a blinded enemy, Case B is an unblinded one.

[Vogonjeltz]

I'd second all of this (with the one exception being that I'm not too impressed with Angry GM as a source). The other allegedly central pillars could have used more, in both rules and guidance. An example list of failure conditions (including things that explicitly give the DM options that might come across as unfair, such as the loss or breakage of equipment on failed rolls) would be nice. Some sort of system explaining how to relate NPCs would have been nice for new players. This could easily turn into yet more annoying minutia, as it did in the 3.x DMG, but it would still be nice.

There already was guidance, turns out it's in the DMG. Go figure, right?

[Naanomi]

The 'variable difficulty' thing has always existed... sure 3.X had lists of how hard a tree was to climb, but a million circumstantial modifiers existed to throw it up and down to fit what the DM 'thinks it should be'... at the best of time it just enouraged slowing down play hunting for fifty modifiers to every roll; rewarding system mastery at the cost of gameplay fluency (and still left the GM in charge of any final 'this is a tree without a lot of handholds' adjustments)

And at least this iteration leaves the absurdity of 'well the book says... therefore jumplomancer!' absurdity far behind

[Sidson]

When it comes to disadvantage and advantage cancelling each other when two blind(ed) characters fight - I love this ruling. It may or may not be realistic but it makes the fight easier and shorter. Fight when everyone have to choose lowest of the two scores may last much longer and after a few turns it becomes boring and frustrating.

[UrielAwakened]

You've made this clear. That doesn't mean the systems are bad though, just that you don't like them - and if the definition of a good system includes being liked bye everybody then it doesn't exist. Meanwhile I'd be downright bored by these games well before the sixth campaign, because I like having more flexibility in terms of how the rules are implemented and that supporting different settings and the like. This can mean just switching from highly concrete system to highly concrete system, but the higher flexibility that comes with higher GM adjudication also helps there. Different people are interested in different things, and I suspect that means that you would hate my games and I would hate yours.

If the system doesn't have good rules, that does mean the system is bad.

That's exactly what it means.


I'm the DM. I don't need to know how difficult it would be for a real person to climb a particular real life cliff. I have to know how difficult I want it to be for an imaginary average person to climb this imaginary cliff.

This is why people with god complexes shouldn't DM. Your rules aren't more important than what's realistic or reasonable to expect. And what's realistic or reasonable to expect shouldn't vary from DM to DM.


D&D actually does give rules for how to DM. It's in the DMG which no one reads, so I'm not sure why they bothered. When they did give more rules than in 5E, if anyone bothered to read them, it was frequently to confirm that the rules were in fact as awful as they were told.

Again, read a few rulebooks for systems not named D&D and you'll see how garbage D&D's DMG really is in terms of giving guidance to a game master.

[BurgerBeast]

Changing the difficulty because of class, or race, or whatever else is generally working against the rules. However, armor check penalty was removed, which means that it doesn't automatically take effect. At the same time, it can fundamentally change the task, and thus a different DC can make sense. I wouldn't do so for balance, but for something like swim? Yeah, keeping your head above water is a fundamentally different task than keeping your head above water while wearing armor, which is a fundamentally different task than keeping your head above water while holding onto a log. If you've got equipment that makes it worse (armor) or better (empty barrel) assigning a different DC is totally reasonable.


I agree. (Snip)

You're missing my point. If you want swimming while wearing armour to be more difficult, then make it more difficult. If you want balancing on a wet log while wearing a 200-pound backpack to be harder than balancing on the same wet log while wearing no backpack, then make it harder.

But none of this means a different DC makes sense. It only means that a lower success rate (on average) ought to apply. The way that the game is designed, this lower success rate comes through via a bonus or penalty to the roll, whether by a straight plus/minus to the result or by advantage/disadvantage. Tasks have DCs, period. Variance due to performer ability or performer circumstance is handled by bonus/penalty, proficiency/nonproficiency, relevant ability score, and advantage/disadvantage.

Failure to recognize this is failure to understand the design of the game. You're free to do so, just don't try to say it fits the design intent. It does not.

Edit:


If something you'd normally think of as part of the character - like armour - factors into your DC decision then that's no big deal. As you say, race and skill proficiency are different because their mechanical effects mean they are already accounted for from the player's side of the equation.

This drives straight at my point. Even if I agreed that X must be accounted for, and is not currently accounted for, I would disagree with your solution.

The solution is to account for it "from the player's side." Not from the DC side.

Mathematically it makes no difference, and I have no personal investment in doing it this particular way - but it the way the game is designed. If you mad if the DC (instead of the roll) then your failing to recognize how the game works.

[Sigreid]

This is why people with god complexes shouldn't DM. Your rules aren't more important than what's realistic or reasonable to expect. And what's realistic or reasonable to expect shouldn't vary from DM to DM.


This isn't a god complex and you missed the point entirely. I don't have to know what in real life would be equivalent of a DC 15 climb. I need to know that in my campaign world cliff x is a DC 15 climb. I'm not a rock climber. I don't really know what makes a climb easier or harder and if I guessed I'd probably be wrong. I do need to know that the Cliffs of Darrinbridge are challenging but not insurmountable and most people will fail most of the time while the trained rogue climber will scale them easily with very little risk of falling.

I make DC rulings all the time on things I don't know how to do based on whether I think joe normal would struggle or not.

[Sigreid]

You're missing my point. If you want swimming while wearing armour to be more difficult, then make it more difficult. If you want balancing on a wet log while wearing a 200-pound backpack to be harder than balancing on the same wet log while wearing no backpack, then make it harder.

But none of this means a different DC makes sense. It only means that a lower success rate (on average) ought to apply. The way that the game is designed, this lower success rate comes through via a bonus or penalty to the roll, whether by a straight plus/minus to the result or by advantage/disadvantage. Tasks have DCs, period. Variance due to performer ability or performer circumstance is handled by bonus/penalty, proficiency/nonproficiency, relevant ability score, and advantage/disadvantage.

Failure to recognize this is failure to understand the design of the game. You're free to do so, just don't try to say it fits the design intent. It does not.

This I don't understand. Changing the DC and telling the player that they have to apply x modifier are in the end the same thing.

[BurgerBeast]

This I don't understand. Changing the DC and telling the player that they have to apply x modifier are in the end the same thing.

Are you literally saying that you can't tell the difference between applying a penalty to the roll versus increasing the DC?

Or are you saying you don't understand why I care because you think it's irrelevant since the result is the same?

[Sigreid]

Are you literally saying that you can't tell the difference between applying a penalty to the roll versus increasing the DC?

Or are you saying you don't understand why I care because you think it's irrelevant since the result is the same?

The second thing. I don't know why it matters if when you're given your target the DM accounts for the modifiers before giving the number or gives the number and then tells you the modifiers.

[Ninja-Radish]

5e is absolutely chock full of mechanics I hate: the skill system, the way they do feats, proficiency bonus, a bunch of stuff.

However, the biggest offender by far is the horrible Advantage/Disadvantage system. What a pile of crap. It basically amounts to automatic success/automatic fail. I've only ever seen one instance of someone succeeding with disadvantage, and that's because they rolled two "20s". Similarly, I've only seen one instance of a failure with advantage, and that was because the highest of the rolls was a "4".

It takes all the suspense out of the game. Especially because there are soooooo many ways to get advantage or impose disadvantage. I can't believe this crap made it through playtesting.

[Sigreid]

5e is absolutely chock full of mechanics I hate: the skill system, the way they do feats, proficiency bonus, a bunch of stuff.

However, the biggest offender by far is the horrible Advantage/Disadvantage system. What a pile of crap. It basically amounts to automatic success/automatic fail. I've only ever seen one instance of someone succeeding with disadvantage, and that's because they rolled two "20s". Similarly, I've only seen one instance of a failure with advantage, and that was because the highest of the rolls was a "4".

It takes all the suspense out of the game. Especially because there are soooooo many ways to get advantage or impose disadvantage. I can't believe this crap made it through playtesting.

Really? I've several times seen people succeed with disadvantage and fail with advantage. Enough that it's really not been that uncommon.

Personally, I like 5e a lot better than earlier editions. I've found the few things I have issue with it's a 2 minute discussion with the group and we agree to a way of handling it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

5e is absolutely chock full of mechanics I hate: the skill system, the way they do feats, proficiency bonus, a bunch of stuff.

However, the biggest offender by far is the horrible Advantage/Disadvantage system. What a pile of crap. It basically amounts to automatic success/automatic fail. I've only ever seen one instance of someone succeeding with disadvantage, and that's because they rolled two "20s". Similarly, I've only seen one instance of a failure with advantage, and that was because the highest of the rolls was a "4".

It takes all the suspense out of the game. Especially because there are soooooo many ways to get advantage or impose disadvantage. I can't believe this crap made it through playtesting.

Funny. I see both (fail with advantage, succeed with disadvantage) multiple times a session. Having it otherwise means your DCs/ACs/Saves are too high/low. It shifts the probability curve slightly, but not a huge amount. Also, very few challenged should be overcome with a single roll. Succeeding/failing at one should have consequences, but not end the challenge in either direction most of the time.

[Dudewithknives]

I hate the rule/concept that feats are optional and so is multclassing.

I have been in gaming long enough and worked behind the scenes long enough to know what that means.

They were just giving themselves and out for if people complained about balance of certain feats (GWM, PAM, SS) or if you multiclass certain things (Pally 2/any full caster x or warlock 2 and anything with cha x)

They can just say, "we don't design things with multiclassing in mind" or "feats are optionsal"

Yet, since the books hit the shelves I have yet to ever see any game that said no feats, and only 1 thay said no multiclassing and that was only because it was like a training for 5e game set up to teach people the system.

I have played in a game where I did not take any feats, but that was because I was playing a monk or a druid who either need the stats badly or they just do not bring much

[Ninja-Radish]

Really? I've several times seen people succeed with disadvantage and fail with advantage. Enough that it's really not been that uncommon.

Personally, I like 5e a lot better than earlier editions. I've found the few things I have issue with it's a 2 minute discussion with the group and we agree to a way of handling it.

Huh. Could just be my experience. Either way, the issue is bad enough that I told my group I'm quitting as DM and somebody else needs to run the game.

[BurgerBeast]

The second thing. I don't know why it matters if when you're given your target the DM accounts for the modifiers before giving the number or gives the number and then tells you the modifiers.

Good, because we agree on that.

My point is that, regardless of why, the designers of 5e decided to make DCs fixed (and based on subject-independent factors). They chose to make all subject-dependent factors modify the roll result, and not the DC.

Thus, while you could choose to raise or lower the DC based on subject-specific considerations, in doing so you'd be doing it in a decidedly different way than the designers chose to do it.

Thus, you'd be going against the design of the game. That's my point.

Why should a DM care? Consistency and transparency. On the face of it, given the way D&D is written, it is unfair to make the DC of one task different for two different characters. It will lead to questions and require explanation. It is much easier, presents as fairer, and matches the rest of the game rules to say "actually the DC is exactly the same, but player X is penalized because he's wearing armour which makes the task harder."

If you really wanted to, you could decide that every PC in the game has +0 to hit, and use proficiency and ability modifiers to increase or decrease the AC of each monster. So each monster would have a range of ACs. But that's not what the designers did. This is true, independent of whether or not what they did is mathematically the same.

[Pex]

This I don't understand. Changing the DC and telling the player that they have to apply x modifier are in the end the same thing.

Not quite. The problem lies in giving one character a DC of X but another character DC > X because he's not proficient. I can agree this particular instance is a DM problem not a 5E problem because the DM doesn't realize the task is already harder for the non-proficient character since he doesn't get to add his proficiency. It is faulty thinking that lack of proficiency should mean a higher DC. However, I will say 5E facilitates this because there is a lack of defined DCs. Since the DC is always DM Make It Up, faulty logic will muddy things up. I am saying facilitate it, not cause it nor teach it.

[Sigreid]

Not quite. The problem lies in giving one character a DC of X but another character DC > X because he's not proficient. I can agree this particular instance is a DM problem not a 5E problem because the DM doesn't realize the task is already harder for the non-proficient character since he doesn't get to add his proficiency. It is faulty thinking that lack of proficiency should mean a higher DC. However, I will say 5E facilitates this because there is a lack of defined DCs. Since the DC is always DM Make It Up, faulty logic will muddy things up. I am saying facilitate it, not cause it nor teach it.

Perhaps I didn't read close enough. I thought what was done was the heavily armored character was given a higher DC due to the armor making the check more difficult. Not anything to do with proficient or not. So to my way of thinking telling a person in heavy armor that the DC 10 unarmored swim check is DC 15 in armor is the same as telling the player to make a swim check DC 10 at -5 penalty due to the armor.

[Garfunion]

Perhaps I didn't read close enough. I thought what was done was the heavily armored character was given a higher DC due to the armor making the check more difficult. Not anything to do with proficient or not. So to my way of thinking telling a person in heavy armor that the DC 10 unarmored swim check is DC 15 in armor is the same as telling the player to make a swim check DC 10 at -5 penalty due to the armor.

No you would give the person in heavy armor disadvantage on the swim check roll

[Zalabim]

As a reminder, the initial example was a dwarf in heavy armor shimmying along a narrow ledge versus an elf in light armor in the same space. It's similar to the concept that a Goliath might have more trouble fitting through a kobold warren than a halfling. I do not know if the DM is basing this on the character's total weight or the character's dimensions, but if the challenge for one character is "fit in a space less than half the size that you normally need" and for the other character it's "fit in a space that is more than half the size that you normally need," it's justified as not being the same challenge.

To give it a more concrete undefined answer, jumping distance is based on strength, but a Strength (athletics) check can let the character jump farther. Some DMs would make that DC based on the total distance, so strong characters find it harder to exceed their limits, and other DMs would make that DC based on the extra distance, so weak characters find it harder to jump across the same gaps as their stronger companions.


If the system doesn't have good rules, that does mean the system is bad.

That's exactly what it means.
It's not binary choice. There's a middle ground. A system that doesn't have a good rule is less likely to be good. A system that does have a bad rule is more likely to be bad.


Again, read a few rulebooks for systems not named D&D and you'll see how garbage D&D's DMG really is in terms of giving guidance to a game master.
I have read other rulebooks. If you have something specific in mind, please share it.

[Knaight]

There already was guidance, turns out it's in the DMG. Go figure, right?
Maybe I should have specified guidance that isn't terrible.


You're missing my point. If you want swimming while wearing armour to be more difficult, then make it more difficult. If you want balancing on a wet log while wearing a 200-pound backpack to be harder than balancing on the same wet log while wearing no backpack, then make it harder.

But none of this means a different DC makes sense. It only means that a lower success rate (on average) ought to apply. The way that the game is designed, this lower success rate comes through via a bonus or penalty to the roll, whether by a straight plus/minus to the result or by advantage/disadvantage. Tasks have DCs, period. Variance due to performer ability or performer circumstance is handled by bonus/penalty, proficiency/nonproficiency, relevant ability score, and advantage/disadvantage.
Yes, but performer circumstance can mean that there is a fundamentally different task. One person is swimming - that's their task. Another is lifting a suit of armor through the water - that's their task. Yet another is holding onto a log - that's their task. There is no reason to have these all be the same DC with different penalties because they aren't the sake task in the first place.


Not quite. The problem lies in giving one character a DC of X but another character DC > X because he's not proficient. I can agree this particular instance is a DM problem not a 5E problem because the DM doesn't realize the task is already harder for the non-proficient character since he doesn't get to add his proficiency. It is faulty thinking that lack of proficiency should mean a higher DC. However, I will say 5E facilitates this because there is a lack of defined DCs. Since the DC is always DM Make It Up, faulty logic will muddy things up. I am saying facilitate it, not cause it nor teach it.
The discussion was no longer about proficiency at that point, but about meaningfully different conditions. As for the lack of defined DCs causing character specific things, I've seen that in 5e and yet have consistently not seen that in any number of other games that don't have defined DCs. This suggests a different cause.

[BurgerBeast]

As a reminder, the initial example was a dwarf in heavy armor shimmying along a narrow ledge versus an elf in light armor in the same space. It's similar to the concept that a Goliath might have more trouble fitting through a kobold warren than a halfling. I do not know if the DM is basing this on the character's total weight or the character's dimensions, but if the challenge for one character is "fit in a space less than half the size that you normally need" and for the other character it's "fit in a space that is more than half the size that you normally need," it's justified as not being the same challenge.

To give it a more concrete undefined answer, jumping distance is based on strength, but a Strength (athletics) check can let the character jump farther. Some DMs would make that DC based on the total distance, so strong characters find it harder to exceed their limits, and other DMs would make that DC based on the extra distance, so weak characters find it harder to jump across the same gaps as their stronger companions

This is a good point, and if the designers had done it this way, it would definitely make sense. However I still say the designers did not do it this way. They designed the entire game in absolute DCs based on environmental factors (so to speak), and left individual variance to modifiers. They've (almost) always done it this way.

The most obvious piece of evidence in my favour is ability scores. A halfling with 18 strength has 18 strength, not "18 strength for a halfling" or "18 strength for a small creature." Whereas the designers might give carrying capacities by size and strength (by giving a specific tabulated rule), for example, the halfling still swings his handaxe and hits as hard as a dragonborn doing the same thing.

If your way of thinking, as outlined, were the case, then there would be no racial modifiers. All races would have 3-18 in all scores, but an orc with 18 intelligence would have 18 intelligence "for an orc." Likewise, we'd have 18 charisma "for a dwarf," and 18 constitution "for a dwarf."

The designers thought it would be cleaner and simpler to fix the numbers. 18 charisma is 18 charisma. 18 charisma does not behave differently depending on whom it is relative to.


Yes, but performer circumstance can mean that there is a fundamentally different task. One person is swimming - that's their task. Another is lifting a suit of armor through the water - that's their task. Yet another is holding onto a log - that's their task. There is no reason to have these all be the same DC with different penalties because they aren't the sake task in the first place.

Granted. My point remains. The parts that vary because of environmental circumstances are folded into DC. The parts that vary due to individual circumstances are folded into the roll as bonuses and penalties.

[HidesHisEyes]

You're missing my point. If you want swimming while wearing armour to be more difficult, then make it more difficult. If you want balancing on a wet log while wearing a 200-pound backpack to be harder than balancing on the same wet log while wearing no backpack, then make it harder.

But none of this means a different DC makes sense. It only means that a lower success rate (on average) ought to apply. The way that the game is designed, this lower success rate comes through via a bonus or penalty to the roll, whether by a straight plus/minus to the result or by advantage/disadvantage. Tasks have DCs, period. Variance due to performer ability or performer circumstance is handled by bonus/penalty, proficiency/nonproficiency, relevant ability score, and advantage/disadvantage.

Failure to recognize this is failure to understand the design of the game. You're free to do so, just don't try to say it fits the design intent. It does not.

Edit:



This drives straight at my point. Even if I agreed that X must be accounted for, and is not currently accounted for, I would disagree with your solution.

The solution is to account for it "from the player's side." Not from the DC side.

Mathematically it makes no difference, and I have no personal investment in doing it this particular way - but it the way the game is designed. If you mad if the DC (instead of the roll) then your failing to recognize how the game works.

I see your logic but we might have to agree to disagree here. Where do you draw the line between the task and the character attempting it? How do you decide which factors belong to the task and which to the character? Just in terms of general semantics it's equally true to say "the task is swimming and the player is doing the task in armour" and "the task is swimming in armour".

The answer to where to draw the line, I think, is "where it makes sense for the convenience of the game". So the characters ability and proficiency are clearly intrinsic to the character because those two numbers affect so many different things that it makes more sense to do it that way around. The same goes for "Eleven grace" and "Dwarven hardiness", which are taken into account at character creation. So when choosing a DC you would never worry about ability score, proficiency or race, as those things come from the PC's side because that's what makes sense for the game. The way they have chosen to handle armour, though, is that aside from disadvantage for stealth (because stealth checks are always against a predetermined Passive Perception score that's intrinsic to another creature, rather than a DC chosen by the DM), armour no longer has an effect on ability checks. So surely it's reasonable to view the task as either "swimming" or "swimming in armour" and set the dc accordingly. In fact in reality that's still not enough nuance; the idea is the DM looks at what the PC is attempting and decides what ability it uses, what proficiency gets applied, and how hard it is - ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS. There could be any number of factors at play, all of which are determined by the exact situation in the fiction, and the DM weighs all of them up and chooses an appropriate DC. One thing I love about 5E is how completely they have boiled this mechanic down to its most essential form, with no need for codified lists of modifiers that apply to either the DC or the dice roll.

Interaction checks are another good example. A lot of people say if a PC gives a good performance or explanation of their Charisma check then they give them a bonus or give them advantage, but I prefer to just factor it into the dc. If a player just says "I try and persuade the guard to let me pass" then I set the DC around 20 for the rather hopeless task "persuade the guard to let them pass". If they explain that they are telling the guard the fate of the realm depends on letting them pass and appealing to his sense of compassion over his duty, then they player has dictated a different task and I may give it a lower DC, but the player's Charisma and Persuasion skill remain the same.

This is the way it makes sense to me and, for what it's worth, what I think WotC had in mind when desiging 5E. But hey, who knows. And who cares, really? As you say it's mathematically identical.

[Zalabim]

This is a good point, and if the designers had done it this way, it would definitely make sense. However I still say the designers did not do it this way. They designed the entire game in absolute DCs based on environmental factors (so to speak), and left individual variance to modifiers. They've (almost) always done it this way.
I do not think the designers have done it your way in even a single case. There's advantage and disadvantage. There's guidance (and presumably a negative guidance curse). However, there is no example of using flat +/- modifiers to represent circumstantial difficulty. It's always done by setting the DC, then assigning disadvantage or advantage when its required or appropriate. Flat modifiers on the roll are always more or less permanent, not circumstantial. In the example of the dwarf on the ledge, a likely module answer would be that characters wearing heavy armor have disadvantage on the roll. Other circumstances might only require characters of a certain height or weight to roll at all, like a small creature's traps being set to go off for 75+ pounds on the trigger, or target at 4' or above height.

Anyway, my example was used because I'm not aware of any official answer regarding it so far. Your constant appeal to authority rings doubly false. The designers aren't claiming to be an authority on setting DCs for your table, and haven't weighed in supporting your position. It's grating.

The most obvious piece of evidence in my favour is ability scores. A halfling with 18 strength has 18 strength, not "18 strength for a halfling" or "18 strength for a small creature." Whereas the designers might give carrying capacities by size and strength (by giving a specific tabulated rule), for example, the halfling still swings his handaxe and hits as hard as a dragonborn doing the same thing.
That halfling has to work harder to get 18 strength, has disadvantage on attack rolls with Heavy weapons, only has 25' base speed, and is going to have to work a lot harder to reach the top shelf than the dragonborn though. They have a lot of differences in related capabilities based on their natural abilities, even if all their ability scores were the same. There are some areas where they're the same and some areas where they are not the same.


If your way of thinking, as outlined, were the case, then there would be no racial modifiers. All races would have 3-18 in all scores, but an orc with 18 intelligence would have 18 intelligence "for an orc." Likewise, we'd have 18 charisma "for a dwarf," and 18 constitution "for a dwarf."

The designers thought it would be cleaner and simpler to fix the numbers. 18 charisma is 18 charisma. 18 charisma does not behave differently depending on whom it is relative to.
My way of thinking, as outlined, is that there's multiple choices. Putting that aside...

The hill dwarf does get more HP, all dwarves resist poison, and the value of 18 charisma in a talk varies a great deal based on how the mark feels about you and how you use it. Even having the same attribute, it matters what you can do, or attempt to do, with it. We might have 18 charisma for a commoner versus 18 charisma for a noble, or 18 charisma for a drow elf versus 18 charisma for a high elf. It might be DC 20 for the prince to convince the king to give over command of the armies and impossible for a pauper to do the same, even if they have otherwise identical character sheets.

There's a wealth of examples of ways the designers get across that this race is stronger, or this class is tougher, or this character is better at that thing.

[HidesHisEyes]

This is a good point, and if the designers had done it this way, it would definitely make sense. However I still say the designers did not do it this way. They designed the entire game in absolute DCs based on environmental factors (so to speak), and left individual variance to modifiers. They've (almost) always done it this way.

The most obvious piece of evidence in my favour is ability scores. A halfling with 18 strength has 18 strength, not "18 strength for a halfling" or "18 strength for a small creature." Whereas the designers might give carrying capacities by size and strength (by giving a specific tabulated rule), for example, the halfling still swings his handaxe and hits as hard as a dragonborn doing the same thing.

If your way of thinking, as outlined, were the case, then there would be no racial modifiers. All races would have 3-18 in all scores, but an orc with 18 intelligence would have 18 intelligence "for an orc." Likewise, we'd have 18 charisma "for a dwarf," and 18 constitution "for a dwarf."

The designers thought it would be cleaner and simpler to fix the numbers. 18 charisma is 18 charisma. 18 charisma does not behave differently depending on whom it is relative to.



Granted. My point remains. The parts that vary because of environmental circumstances are folded into DC. The parts that vary due to individual circumstances are folded into the roll as bonuses and penalties.

Sorry for the double post. I do agree with you on this. I just don't think we agree on what constitutes "individual circumstances". I think this term extends to ability score (and by extension race), proficiency, and anything that specifically gives advantage or disadvantage - and no further. Everything else is part of the definition of the task.

[HidesHisEyes]

I do not think the designers have done it your way in even a single case. There's advantage and disadvantage. There's guidance (and presumably a negative guidance curse). However, there is no example of using flat +/- modifiers to represent circumstantial difficulty. It's always done by setting the DC, then assigning disadvantage or advantage when its required or appropriate. Flat modifiers on the roll are always more or less permanent, not circumstantial. In the example of the dwarf on the ledge, a likely module answer would be that characters wearing heavy armor have disadvantage on the roll. Other circumstances might only require characters of a certain height or weight to roll at all, like a small creature's traps being set to go off for 75+ pounds on the trigger, or target at 4' or above height.

Anyway, my example was used because I'm not aware of any official answer regarding it so far. Your constant appeal to authority rings doubly false. The designers aren't claiming to be an authority on setting DCs for your table, and haven't weighed in supporting your position. It's grating.

That halfling has to work harder to get 18 strength, has disadvantage on attack rolls with Heavy weapons, only has 25' base speed, and is going to have to work a lot harder to reach the top shelf than the dragonborn though. They have a lot of differences in related capabilities based on their natural abilities, even if all their ability scores were the same. There are some areas where they're the same and some areas where they are not the same.


My way of thinking, as outlined, is that there's multiple choices. Putting that aside...

The hill dwarf does get more HP, all dwarves resist poison, and the value of 18 charisma in a talk varies a great deal based on how the mark feels about you and how you use it. Even having the same attribute, it matters what you can do, or attempt to do, with it. We might have 18 charisma for a commoner versus 18 charisma for a noble, or 18 charisma for a drow elf versus 18 charisma for a high elf. It might be DC 20 for the prince to convince the king to give over command of the armies and impossible for a pauper to do the same, even if they have otherwise identical character sheets.

There's a wealth of examples of ways the designers get across that this race is stronger, or this class is tougher, or this character is better at that thing.

Exactly. Is the pauper's disadvantage in the task of persuading the nobleman intrinsic to the pauper? Is it something to do with the nobleman? No, it's the combination of the two that causes the difficulty. In other words it's a function of the situation in the fiction, so it should factor into the DC.

[Doug Lampert]

The discussion was no longer about proficiency at that point, but about meaningfully different conditions. As for the lack of defined DCs causing character specific things, I've seen that in 5e and yet have consistently not seen that in any number of other games that don't have defined DCs. This suggests a different cause.

It's a "feature" of the RNG vastly outweighing the characteristics of the character.

Level 20 Wizard with maxed Int and proficiency rolls for arcane knowledge at +12.
Level 1 Barbarian or an NPC commoner with 8 int and no proficiency rolls arcana at -1.

DC 17 task, the Barbarian succeeds 15% of the time, the wizard fails 20% of the time; the barbarian succeeds AND the wizard fails 3% of the time.

If it's a competition and we're just looking for who rolls better, it's up over 5%.
If there's an entire party, the chance that Wizard fails his main thing (arcane knowledge) and some dweeb with nothing spent on this succeeds is even higher.

This gets pointed out, and people say, "Well, just don't let the barbarian roll", or "give the barbarian a higher DC".

I mean, I've seen both of those recommended on this very board often enough.

Very few people like a "great expert" fails on a task a novice can reasonably manage 20% of the time. Very few really likes an over 5% chance that I win a race against Usain Bolt. Which is fine, if there are only two guys in the contest, just don't roll, but if I need an ordered outcome (who manages what), and I've decided to roll to resolve the issue, then I'm back to results that make sense only if skill hardly matters at all.

And there are a lot more fifth ed. games where "good" attribute is 16 and proficiency is +3 than where the values are 20 and +7. In the regime where actual games happen things are too random.

Adjusting DCs is a "simple" way to fix this. I'd rather fix the system or play something else. But variable DCs are caused by the DM thinking the RNG is too large an input relative to proficiency and adjusting this on the fly.

[HidesHisEyes]

It's a "feature" of the RNG vastly outweighing the characteristics of the character.

Level 20 Wizard with maxed Int and proficiency rolls for arcane knowledge at +12.
Level 1 Barbarian or an NPC commoner with 8 int and no proficiency rolls arcana at -1.

DC 17 task, the Barbarian succeeds 15% of the time, the wizard fails 20% of the time; the barbarian succeeds AND the wizard fails 3% of the time.

If it's a competition and we're just looking for who rolls better, it's up over 5%.
If there's an entire party, the chance that Wizard fails his main thing (arcane knowledge) and some dweeb with nothing spent on this succeeds is even higher.

This gets pointed out, and people say, "Well, just don't let the barbarian roll", or "give the barbarian a higher DC".

I mean, I've seen both of those recommended on this very board often enough.

Very few people like a "great expert" fails on a task a novice can reasonably manage 20% of the time. Very few really likes an over 5% chance that I win a race against Usain Bolt. Which is fine, if there are only two guys in the contest, just don't roll, but if I need an ordered outcome (who manages what), and I've decided to roll to resolve the issue, then I'm back to results that make sense only if skill hardly matters at all.

And there are a lot more fifth ed. games where "good" attribute is 16 and proficiency is +3 than where the values are 20 and +7. In the regime where actual games happen things are too random.

Adjusting DCs is a "simple" way to fix this. I'd rather fix the system or play something else. But variable DCs are caused by the DM thinking the RNG is too large an input relative to proficiency and adjusting this on the fly.

I think what people sometimes miss when pointing out this alleged problem is that the whole game and its mechanics happen in the context of "adventurers". All PCs are adventurers first, barbarian or rogue or wizard second. That means all have the ability to do adventurer stuff like jump, climb, fight, dodge, sneak and recall lore. These are the tricks of the trade for an adventurer. Your abilities and class determine which ones you excel at. So the system was never designed to model a race between me and Usain Bolt. It comes down, as it so often does, to people mistaking a game for a simulation.

[Naanomi]

I prefer this 'anyone can try' model to 3.X's 'the only people who should bother to roll are people who probably automatically succeed' skill system

[PhoenixPhyre]

I prefer this 'anyone can try' model to 3.X's 'the only people who should bother to roll are people who probably automatically succeed' skill system

Me too. Binary situations are boring at the table. I much prefer the "if you have to roll, there should be a possibility of success and of failure" with a lot of things just auto-success or auto-failure. Means fewer, more meaningful rolls.

Of course, no situation should succeed or fail completely based on a single roll. Gating essential information/items/etc behind a single point of failure is just horrible DMing/quest design. Failure on any single roll should have consequences, but recoverable ones.

[Pex]

Perhaps I didn't read close enough. I thought what was done was the heavily armored character was given a higher DC due to the armor making the check more difficult. Not anything to do with proficient or not. So to my way of thinking telling a person in heavy armor that the DC 10 unarmored swim check is DC 15 in armor is the same as telling the player to make a swim check DC 10 at -5 penalty due to the armor.

In that particular case I would have preferred the check be for the same DC but at disadvantage. The only official rule on 5E and armor about skills is disadvantage on stealth checks. The DM could have at least used that as a reference for when he thinks wearing armor would make doing something harder. The ledge doesn't change because of who is doing the walking.

You are right that proficiency specifically wasn't a factor in that scenario. Let's back track a bit in that it's more of a concept - the idea of the DC of a task should not change based on who is doing the task. The character's raw talent - ability score, proficiency, class feature determines his ability to do something. That something has a specific DC. One person having a harder time doing that something is because he has a lower total modifier to the roll because of different ability score, proficiency, and/or class feature. External circumstances - help from another, wearing armor, etc. would give Advantage/Disadvantage, or a +/- # to the roll. The DC of the task should remain the same because the task remains the same. It didn't change.

Mathematically there might not be a difference, but it affects a player's sense of awareness of what's happening and why.

[Naanomi]

In that particular case I would have preferred the check be for the same DC but at disadvantage. The only official rule on 5E and armor about skills is disadvantage on stealth checks. The DM could have at least used that as a reference for when he thinks wearing armor would make doing something harder. The ledge doesn't change because of who is doing the walking.

You are right that proficiency specifically wasn't a factor in that scenario. Let's back track a bit in that it's more of a concept - the idea of the DC of a task should not change based on who is doing the task. The character's raw talent - ability score, proficiency, class feature determines his ability to do something. That something has a specific DC. One person having a harder time doing that something is because he has a lower total modifier to the roll because of different ability score, proficiency, and/or class feature. External circumstances - help from another, wearing armor, etc. would give Advantage/Disadvantage. The DC of the task should remain the same because the task remains the same. It didn't change.
I could see some exceptions to this in the social skills... a higher DC for a dwarven criminal to convince the elven king to help them than an elven noble... would seem to be more of a DC issue than 'just' disadvantage

[PhoenixPhyre]

I could see some exceptions to this in the social skills... a higher DC for a dwarven criminal to convince the elven king to help them than an elven noble... would seem to be more of a DC issue than 'just' disadvantage

I could see some such things making a check impossible (or auto success), but for conditions outside that I'd use advantage/disadvantage with a static DC because it's easier on everybody. For me, DCs are not static--character actions can ease or bolster the challenge of subsequent checks. Win the king's trust by doing stuff for him, then the difficulty to persuade him goes down. Irritate him beforehand and the difficulty later goes up.

[Pex]

I prefer this 'anyone can try' model to 3.X's 'the only people who should bother to roll are people who probably automatically succeed' skill system

This is an issue of players not system. The players ask who has the highest modifier to a skill roll, and that character does the roll. A few times the DM asks the question of who has the highest modifier to make the roll. Happens in my Pathfinder games. Happens in my 5E games.

I find it annoying.


I could see some exceptions to this in the social skills... a higher DC for a dwarven criminal to convince the elven king to help them than an elven noble... would seem to be more of a DC issue than 'just' disadvantage

The DC is already high to reflect the difficulty of convincing the elf king to do something, but the elf noble PC gets advantage to the roll and the dwarf criminal PC gets disadvantage. Ergo, the elf player tells the dwarf player "Let me do the talking." and the dwarf player keeps quiet. If he says something disruptive anyway, the elf has to make another check, not at advantage but for a lower DC since he already has the king's attention.

[Doug Lampert]

I think what people sometimes miss when pointing out this alleged problem is that the whole game and its mechanics happen in the context of "adventurers". All PCs are adventurers first, barbarian or rogue or wizard second. That means all have the ability to do adventurer stuff like jump, climb, fight, dodge, sneak and recall lore. These are the tricks of the trade for an adventurer. Your abilities and class determine which ones you excel at. So the system was never designed to model a race between me and Usain Bolt. It comes down, as it so often does, to people mistaking a game for a simulation.

Yep, and if it is a level 20 wizard rolling, then the other character is probably a level 20 barbarian who's been adventuring with a wizard since they were both level 1, and in that case it's perfectly reasonable for the barbarian to make an arcana roll that the wizard fails at, especially when the arcana roll isn't taking a test in a quiet classroom, it's remembering a monster's crucial weakness or spotting what spell is being cast while in the middle of combat with lots of crap going on and people maybe facing in different directions at the crucial instant.

Any PC can reasonably beat any other PC in actual field conditions. Even me beating Bolt can easily be justified, maybe Usain trips on a rock and I move faster this time, adventurers are unlikely to be running on a nice smooth track. Things are more chancy in the field.

The reason it doesn't work for me is that I'll often have NPC allies or minions present, and I need to either say "they can't roll" or have them be off the range sometimes. 5th edition doesn't use the same design for NPCs as PCs, but it does use the same rules for how actions work, and I'll usually let a player run the NPC ally (if any), so the player will want to roll, or at least have a consistent set of rules for how he rolls.

If the party rescues the princess, and whoever's running her wants her to roll, I'd like a ruleset that can handle that.

But it's a personal preference, and the fifth edition method is actually fine as long as everyone rolling is a PC and all the PCs are of comparable level.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yep, and if it is a level 20 wizard rolling, then the other character is probably a level 20 barbarian who's been adventuring with a wizard since they were both level 1, and in that case it's perfectly reasonable for the barbarian to make an arcana roll that the wizard fails at, especially when the arcana roll isn't taking a test in a quiet classroom, it's remembering a monster's crucial weakness or spotting what spell is being cast while in the middle of combat with lots of crap going on and people maybe facing in different directions at the crucial instant.

Any PC can reasonably beat any other PC in actual field conditions. Even me beating Bolt can easily be justified, maybe Usain trips on a rock and I move faster this time, adventurers are unlikely to be running on a nice smooth track. Things are more chancy in the field.

The reason it doesn't work for me is that I'll often have NPC allies or minions present, and I need to either say "they can't roll" or have them be off the range sometimes. 5th edition doesn't use the same design for NPCs as PCs, but it does use the same rules for how actions work, and I'll usually let a player run the NPC ally (if any), so the player will want to roll, or at least have a consistent set of rules for how he rolls.

If the party rescues the princess, and whoever's running her wants her to roll, I'd like a ruleset that can handle that.

But it's a personal preference, and the fifth edition method is actually fine as long as everyone rolling is a PC and all the PCs are of comparable level.

Have the NPC use the Help action on a relevant PC. That keeps the focus where it belongs, on the PCs, and keeps everything running. Only exception is where the NPC ally has to do something themselves (eg balance across a tightrope). Then, made sure the NPC will have difficulty without PC assistance, or make sure that if the NPC succeeds the challenge isn't over.

5e is not a simulation. Choose the resolution pattern that a) fits the fictional situation, b) have interesting consequences either way, and c) keep the focus on the PCs and their actions.

[Ninja-Radish]

I prefer this 'anyone can try' model to 3.X's 'the only people who should bother to roll are people who probably automatically succeed' skill system

The problem is that because modifiers in 5e are so low, the only thing that matters is the d20 roll. That leads to ludicrous situations like the illiterate Barbarian succeeding at an Arcana check that the Wizard failed.

I prefer 3e/Pathfinder, where investing in a skill actually mattered.

[BurgerBeast]

I can't believe people are still using convoluted arguments to dance around this. Here's my request, then:

Show me one published adventure that gives multiple DCs for the same task.

There isn't one. That's because the game treats variation in the performer (i.e. That only affect the individual) as modifications to the roll, not to the DC. Variations to the environment (i.e. That affect all performers) are treated as changes to the DC.

Show me the adventure with the wall that is DC 12 to climb, 14 if wearing medium armour, 17 if small, 19 is small and wearing medium armour, 7 if large, 9 if large and wearing medium armour...

We all know the truth of the matter. The DC is fixed and the personal differences are folded into the modifiers.

Circumstantial differences that are tied to the character (not the environment) are bonuses or penalties to the roll (not the DC), but out of "simplicity" the 5e designers replaced these with advantage/disadvantage (except in some rare cases (cover, for example).

The distinction between personal and environmental factors can be challenging in very rare cases, but typically it is crystal clear.

DC to climb a wall: 10.

Same wall on a rainy day: 12. <- the rain has made the wall more difficult to climb for everyone in the same way

Same wall, frozen, with icy surface: DC 15. <- harder for everyone in the same way

Same wall (no rain or ice), climber is wearing armour: DC 10. The armour does not make the wall harder to climb for everyone. It makes the wall harder to climb for you. DC 10 but you get a penalty.

That's how the game works. It's not the only conceivable way that D&D might have worked. It is the way it actually works, though.

[Naanomi]

There are published adventures where the size of the character determines how easily they avoid a trap... and that change the DC for a passive check VS an active one...

Not that prepublished modules should necessarily act as a 'how to play DnD guide'... after all doesn't one have a door that is DC 70 to knock down?

[Ninja-Radish]

While we're on the topic of dumb rules, let's talk about Concentration, cause f--k that mechanic. Yes I realize it existed back in 3E, but very few spells had a duration of concentration back then. Now, it seems that two-thirds of the spells in the game require concentration.

Wanna have Alter Self and Haste up? Too bad. How about Protection from Evil and Hex? Nope. I'm at the point where I don't even want to pick new spells for my Warlock. Why? Because they pretty much all compete with Hex.

[smcmike]

There is a published example of a check that can only even be attempted by a Small character. This is not the same as multiple DCs for the same task by a small or medium character, but it does suggest that such a thing makes sense.

Generally, though, one set DC for any particular task makes more sense.

[Pex]

I can't believe people are still using convoluted arguments to dance around this. Here's my request, then:

Show me one published adventure that gives multiple DCs for the same task.

There isn't one. That's because the game treats variation in the performer (i.e. That only affect the individual) as modifications to the roll, not to the DC. Variations to the environment (i.e. That affect all performers) are treated as changes to the DC.

Show me the adventure with the wall that is DC 12 to climb, 14 if wearing medium armour, 17 if small, 19 is small and wearing medium armour, 7 if large, 9 if large and wearing medium armour...

We all know the truth of the matter. The DC is fixed and the personal differences are folded into the modifiers.

Circumstantial differences that are tied to the character (not the environment) are bonuses or penalties to the roll (not the DC), but out of "simplicity" the 5e designers replaced these with advantage/disadvantage (except in some rare cases (cover, for example).

The distinction between personal and environmental factors can be challenging in very rare cases, but typically it is crystal clear.

DC to climb a wall: 10.

Same wall on a rainy day: 12. <- the rain has made the wall more difficult to climb for everyone in the same way

Same wall, frozen, with icy surface: DC 15. <- harder for everyone in the same way

Same wall (no rain or ice), climber is wearing armour: DC 10. The armour does not make the wall harder to climb for everyone. It makes the wall harder to climb for you. DC 10 but you get a penalty.

That's how the game works. It's not the only conceivable way that D&D might have worked. It is the way it actually works, though.

Published modules are not the be all end all of playing the game. Some DMs create their own adventures. The most recent issue is a DM changing the DC of a task depending on who is doing the task. That is a DM issue of not realizing the game already takes into account different characters having different difficulties doing the task because of built in modifiers.

The other issue, the game's issue, setting up the DC in the first place. Defined DCs in a module are nice but don't solve the problem. They don't necessarily have DCs for everything, such as the DC for identifying a creature and its abilities, but that's not the full point. What happens when it's a DM who uses his own adventure? What's the DC to identify a troll and its abilities? For one DM the DC is You Can't Roll For It. For another DM it's DC Knowledge Nature 15. For a third DM it's Knowledge Nature 20. For a fourth DM it's Intelligence check no proficiency DC 15. For a fifth DM it's DC Get Information Based On The Number On The D20 The Player Rolled. For a sixth DM it's DC You Can't Roll If You're Not Proficient In Knowledge Nature Otherwise DC 15. My character's ability to know what a troll is and its abilities, or succeed at any skill, depends on who is DM that day. I dislike the lack of consistency.

[Telok]

I can't believe people are still using convoluted arguments to dance around this. Here's my request, then:

Show me one published adventure that gives multiple DCs for the same task.

Lets see...
Out of the Abyss has an int:history check you can only attempt to make if you're native to the underdark to know any general information about drow history. The first dragon/tiamat adventure book has different DCs for people to infiltrate a cultist camp depending on which characters fought someone in the camp previously.

Those are the only two that depend on who the character is. There are a number where the DC changes dependent on having specific equipment. There are a number that are dependent on what the characters do, including one that's an auto-fail is you roll the skill instead of roleplaying it. There are a few that change DCs depending on the character taking a 10' movement penalty or not. Of course there are also things that don't change DCs, like some traps and hidden stuff that doesn't change whether or not anyone is actively searching or looking. And of course, my favourite, the climb DCs are all over the place without any consistency.

Of course my list is out of date too. It doesn't include things published in the last year or so.

[Unoriginal]

While we're on the topic of dumb rules, let's talk about Concentration, cause f--k that mechanic. Yes I realize it existed back in 3E, but very few spells had a duration of concentration back then. Now, it seems that two-thirds of the spells in the game require concentration.

Wanna have Alter Self and Haste up? Too bad. How about Protection from Evil and Hex? Nope. I'm at the point where I don't even want to pick new spells for my Warlock. Why? Because they pretty much all compete with Hex.

Dude, this is a feature, not a bug. Concentration exists *specifically* to avoid stacking spells and the like.

I don't want to be pedantic, but it seems to me like you simply hate the way 5e handles how powerful things are and would rather have a game that is a non-stop powerfest like Pathfinder.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Dude, this is a feature, not a bug. Concentration exists *specifically* to avoid stacking spells and the like.

I don't want to be pedantic, but it seems to me like you simply hate the way 5e handles how powerful things are and would rather have a game that is a non-stop powerfest like Pathfinder.

Exactly. The warlock in my group doesn't even know hex. He's busy using "less optimal" but more fun (to him) spells. Concentration also makes things much simpler to run--no more stacks of modifiers and effects, each with different durations and conditions.

[Ninja-Radish]

Dude, this is a feature, not a bug. Concentration exists *specifically* to avoid stacking spells and the like.

I don't want to be pedantic, but it seems to me like you simply hate the way 5e handles how powerful things are and would rather have a game that is a non-stop powerfest like Pathfinder.

One man's feature is another man's bug I suppose. Yes I am a Pathfinder fan, as well as a 4E fan, I like my characters to actually be capable of cool stuff. The thing I miss most is the utility spells. Having Detect Magic, or Alter Self, Water Breathing, Spider Climb, etc.

5E has made it very difficult to use utility spells. Now that you can only have one active spell, everything is about combat.

[Unoriginal]

One man's feature is another man's bug I suppose. Yes I am a Pathfinder fan, as well as a 4E fan, I like my characters to actually be capable of cool stuff. The thing I miss most is the utility spells. Having Detect Magic, or Alter Self, Water Breathing, Spider Climb, etc.

5E has made it very difficult to use utility spells. Now that you can only have one active spell, everything is about combat.

Actually the utility spells are easy to use, especially with the ritual casting. The Concentration spells are those who are powerful in combat, most of the time.

And no, it's not "one man's feature is another man's bug", it's the game that is built like that to avoid the "casters are better than the martials at all skills, can buff themselves or cast attack spells to be better in combat than the martials, can summon stuff better than the martials in combat, and have things they can do that the martials can't on top of that" issue of 3.PF

[Ninja-Radish]

Actually the utility spells are easy to use, especially with the ritual casting. The Concentration spells are those who are powerful in combat, most of the time.

And no, it's not "one man's feature is another man's bug", it's the game that is built like that to avoid the "casters are better than the martials at all skills, can buff themselves or cast attack spells to be better in combat than the martials, can summon stuff better than the martials in combat, and have things they can do that the martials can't on top of that" issue of 3.PF

Except the system nerfed the heck out of martials as well, so casters still dominate the game. At least that's what it feels like. Melee damage in particular is abysmal in 5e; chipping away with 1d8+5 damage repeatedly is awful. Compared to the 30-40 damage I used to do with a sword swing in Pathfinder, it doesn't really feel like I'm hacking into someone with a sword. It feels more like I'm tickling them with a featherduster.

I couldn't tell you how many times I spent 3 or 4 rounds chipping away at something and doing piddly damage, only to have someone kill 3 or 4 bad guys with Shatter or a similar spell. So, martials didn't exactly get a boost either, more like everyone got nerfed hard.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Except the system nerfed the heck out of martials as well, so casters still dominate the game. At least that's what it feels like. Melee damage in particular is abysmal in 5e; chipping away with 1d8+5 damage repeatedly is awful. Compared to the 30-40 damage I used to do with a sword swing in Pathfinder, it doesn't really feel like I'm hacking into someone with a sword. It feels more like I'm tickling them with a featherduster.

I couldn't tell you how many times I spent 3 or 4 rounds chipping away at something and doing piddly damage, only to have someone kill 3 or 4 bad guys with Shatter or a similar spell. So, martials didn't exactly get a boost either, more like everyone got nerfed hard.

You're comparing numbers between editions. That's a mistake--too many things have changed. Relative to HP, a well built martial does more average damage (kills things quicker) than a caster, except with aoe situations. Damage wise, casters generally excel against swarms of low HP mooks, martials against beefier single targets.

My advise for anyone coming from 3.PF or 4e: forget everything you know about mechanics. The words may be the same, but the effects are different and so is the philosophy underlying them. If you try to play 5e with a 3e mindset, you'll get frustrated. So compartmentalize. Play 3e with a 3e mindset, and 5e with a 5e mindset. You'll be happier and have more fun.

[Knaight]

It's a "feature" of the RNG vastly outweighing the characteristics of the character.

Level 20 Wizard with maxed Int and proficiency rolls for arcane knowledge at +12.
Level 1 Barbarian or an NPC commoner with 8 int and no proficiency rolls arcana at -1.

DC 17 task, the Barbarian succeeds 15% of the time, the wizard fails 20% of the time; the barbarian succeeds AND the wizard fails 3% of the time.

If it's a competition and we're just looking for who rolls better, it's up over 5%.
If there's an entire party, the chance that Wizard fails his main thing (arcane knowledge) and some dweeb with nothing spent on this succeeds is even higher.

This gets pointed out, and people say, "Well, just don't let the barbarian roll", or "give the barbarian a higher DC".

That would be my interpretation as well, where it exists more as a weird patch on the fly system than anything else. I used Fate as an example earlier, and there a character with Average skill going up against one with Legendary skill has a whopping 1/(3^8) chance of pulling that off, approximately 0.0015%. There are ways to push that number around, but they involve burning resources and cooperation and the like, and thus don't tend to crop up a lot in terms of the party trying to do stuff.

[Ninja-Radish]

You're comparing numbers between editions. That's a mistake--too many things have changed. Relative to HP, a well built martial does more average damage (kills things quicker) than a caster, except with aoe situations. Damage wise, casters generally excel against swarms of low HP mooks, martials against beefier single targets.

My advise for anyone coming from 3.PF or 4e: forget everything you know about mechanics. The words may be the same, but the effects are different and so is the philosophy underlying them. If you try to play 5e with a 3e mindset, you'll get frustrated. So compartmentalize. Play 3e with a 3e mindset, and 5e with a 5e mindset. You'll be happier and have more fun.

Hmmm...this is excellent advice actually, thanks. I will have to give this a try because right now I just get frustrated that I can't do the same things I used to be able to do. I think I need to treat 5e not as a new edition, but as an entirely different game.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Hmmm...this is excellent advice actually, thanks. I will have to give this a try because right now I just get frustrated that I can't do the same things I used to be able to do. I think I need to treat 5e not as a new edition, but as an entirely different game.

I guess I'm lucky. I've only played 2e and 3e on computer, and started table top with 4e (playing a seriously simplified version due to session length constraints). Made shifting mindsets easy. I can see that for veterans it might be harder. I think it's the right thing to do so as to give 5e a fair shake.

[Pelle]

The other issue, the game's issue, setting up the DC in the first place. Defined DCs in a module are nice but don't solve the problem. They don't necessarily have DCs for everything, such as the DC for identifying a creature and its abilities, but that's not the full point. What happens when it's a DM who uses his own adventure? What's the DC to identify a troll and its abilities?

Was this a poorly chosen example on your behalf? Because the DC for identifying a troll should absolutely be dependent on the setting, and vary greatly from DM to DM. You used climbing a tree as an example previously. Why should every tree have the same DC to climb?

If the DM describes the task as hard/easy, or having DC 20/10, could you not update your mental image of the tree to have fewer/more branches? Or is it only a problem for you when the DM describes the tree as having lots of branches, and then announces the climb DC to be 20 when you try?

[Easy_Lee]

Was this a poorly chosen example on your behalf? Because the DC for identifying a troll should absolutely be dependent on the setting, and vary greatly from DM to DM. You used climbing a tree as an example previously. Why should every tree have the same DC to climb?

If the DM describes the task as hard/easy, or having DC 20/10, could you not update your mental image of the tree to have fewer/more branches? Or is it only a problem for you when the DM describes the tree as having lots of branches, and then announces the climb DC to be 20 when you try?

I think the main issue there is assumptions about the world. PCs can gain a climb speed fairly easily, which let's them climb even easier than Link from Breath of the Wild. With that in mind, should anything require a DC 20 check to climb? Unless it's a slick wire in the middle of a storm, I can't imagine it.

Or are we playing in a low power campaign where things like Spider Climb and moon druids are rare? In that case, difficult climb checks make sense. But do bear in mind that a DC 20 climb check is something that would be difficult for a level 1 rogue with athletics expertise - someone basically on par with a real life professional climber, based on my understanding.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think the main issue there is assumptions about the world. PCs can gain a climb speed fairly easily, which let's them climb even easier than Link from Breath of the Wild. With that in mind, should anything require a DC 20 check to climb? Unless it's a slick wire in the middle of a storm, I can't imagine it.

Or are we playing in a low power campaign where things like Spider Climb and moon druids are rare? In that case, difficult climb checks make sense. But do bear in mind that a DC 20 climb check is something that would be difficult for a level 1 rogue with athletics expertise - someone basically on par with a real life professional climber, based on my understanding.

And even without a climb speed, the default is that climbing doesn't take a check at all. Just costs extra movement unless the surface is particularly slick.

That particular example is another case of people using 3.X mechanics in a 5e game. Read the books, people--the words are similar, but the meaning and mechanics have changed.

[Waterdeep Merch]

And even without a climb speed, the default is that climbing doesn't take a check at all. Just costs extra movement unless the surface is particularly slick.

That particular example is another case of people using 3.X mechanics in a 5e game. Read the books, people--the words are similar, but the meaning and mechanics have changed.
Very good advice. You have no idea how many times I've conflated rules from older editions with 5e's take, all because I wasn't paying all that much attention to the PHB/DMG when I read them because I 'know what I'm doing'. The arrogance of experience, if you will.

[Pelle]

And even without a climb speed, the default is that climbing doesn't take a check at all. Just costs extra movement unless the surface is particularly slick.


Still the DM can present a situation with a tree that is difficult to climb, having few handholds, requiring a check. But then it is up to the DM to communicate that this tree will be challenging to climb.

I find this flexibility superior to having a fixed DC for trees...

[HidesHisEyes]

In that particular case I would have preferred the check be for the same DC but at disadvantage. The only official rule on 5E and armor about skills is disadvantage on stealth checks. The DM could have at least used that as a reference for when he thinks wearing armor would make doing something harder. The ledge doesn't change because of who is doing the walking.

You are right that proficiency specifically wasn't a factor in that scenario. Let's back track a bit in that it's more of a concept - the idea of the DC of a task should not change based on who is doing the task. The character's raw talent - ability score, proficiency, class feature determines his ability to do something. That something has a specific DC. One person having a harder time doing that something is because he has a lower total modifier to the roll because of different ability score, proficiency, and/or class feature. External circumstances - help from another, wearing armor, etc. would give Advantage/Disadvantage, or a +/- # to the roll. The DC of the task should remain the same because the task remains the same. It didn't change.

Mathematically there might not be a difference, but it affects a player's sense of awareness of what's happening and why.

You are right but armour still doesn't need to be included in the character's side of the equation. You are right that the ledge doesn't change depending on who is walking on it, but the DC isn't the DC of the ledge, it's the DC of the task. And the task "walk along the narrow ledge" is different from the task "walk along the narrow ledge in heavy armour".

[Easy_Lee]

You are right but armour still doesn't need to be included in the character's side of the equation. You are right that the ledge doesn't change depending on who is walking on it, but the DC isn't the DC of the ledge, it's the DC of the task. And the task "walk along the narrow ledge" is different from the task "walk along the narrow ledge in heavy armour".

If you're proficient with heavy armor, then the assumption is that it doesn't impact your movement except as stated. Like I've said before, if you punish heavy armor too much then players will stop wearing it. The AC difference between plate and not-plate is only one point.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Very good advice. You have no idea how many times I've conflated rules from older editions with 5e's take, all because I wasn't paying all that much attention to the PHB/DMG when I read them because I 'know what I'm doing'. The arrogance of experience, if you will.

I've wanted to start a thread with the provocative title "The best 5e DMs haven't played before 5e" or something like that, but I've taken a vow of non-flaming.


Still the DM can present a situation with a tree that is difficult to climb, having few handholds, requiring a check. But then it is up to the DM to communicate that this tree will be challenging to climb.

Absolutely. I find it best to explicitly use the key words (easy, medium, hard) in the description when a check is called for, and to be as direct and open about everything as possible. Language is lossy--trying to fit the entirety of what the characters experience through their senses and their experience through a few sentences of natural language in an unambiguous manner is hard enough. Doing it without some meta references is doomed to failure. I also ask for confirmation for anything that may be unusually risky or difficult. "That's going to be very difficult because reason. Are you sure?"

I hate the gotcha DM'ing style--the players and the DM are working together to have fun. There is no competition, no antagonism necessary. My win as a DM is when everybody has an amazing session, success or failure. Some of my best have been ones that went completely off-plan but ended up being awesome. I find myself having to take a moment to think "would that work?" and if so, just rolling with it. If not, telling the players up front that it ain't gonna work (for specific actions, not for long-term goals).



I find this flexibility superior to having a fixed DC for trees...

Amen. Not all trees are similar--not even close. Adventurers should be able to do basic adventuring things automatically. Rolls are only needed when there's interesting ways the action could fail (or degrees of success).

[Aett_Thorn]

Still the DM can present a situation with a tree that is difficult to climb, having few handholds, requiring a check. But then it is up to the DM to communicate that this tree will be challenging to climb.

I find this flexibility superior to having a fixed DC for trees...

Climbing an apple tree is much easier than climbing a palm tree, for example.

[Knaight]

I've wanted to start a thread with the provocative title "The best 5e DMs haven't played before 5e" or something like that, but I've taken a vow of non-flaming.

It's also almost certainly inaccurate - a lot of the non-mechanical stuff transfers just fine, and there's plenty of people in the hobby who can jump between games with little issue. Granted, most of us avoid D&D like the plague, but still.


If you're proficient with heavy armor, then the assumption is that it doesn't impact your movement except as stated. Like I've said before, if you punish heavy armor too much then players will stop wearing it. The AC difference between plate and not-plate is only one point.
Taking armor into account when setting DCs isn't punishing it, it's basic simulation. There's also plenty of cases where the heavy armor would actually help, starting with basically any check used to resist being moved or to stop something from moving. If there's any punishment for heavy armor it's the tiny AC difference.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It's also almost certainly inaccurate - a lot of the non-mechanical stuff transfers just fine, and there's plenty of people in the hobby who can jump between games with little issue. Granted, most of us avoid D&D like the plague, but still.


Right. Hence the line about taking a vow of non-flaming. I do find the people who (like bad programmers who can write FORTRAN in any language) play 3.X (which is the usual offender) in other editions and expect things to work "just like they're used to" to be quite annoying. I've had DMs like that and played with people like that (as well as seen it time and time again on the forums).

My basic thing is: import setting fluff/ideas/concepts as you wish. Those aren't too mechanically tied and so transfer very well. Transfer mechanical ideas (a system that does X) but rewrite the implementation. Convert monsters, traps, spells, and classes thematically, not mechanically. They won't play exactly the same, but the concept/idea can usually work. Be prepared to make up a lot of things on the fly as appropriate. Read the DMG (beyond just the tables). Read the chunk of the PHB between the equipment and the spells. In general, treat the mechanics as from a whole separate game (like moving from 2e to 3e--basically all the mechanics had to change beyond the most abstract).

One does have to wonder--if you oh so superior life-forms (sarcasm) avoid D&D like the plague (bolded section of quote), why are you posting on the 5e sub-forum about 5e D&D concerns? It comes across as quite supercilious when you put it that way. I personally find that D&D (5e in particular, although 4e was fun for what it did) does the vast majority of what I'm looking for in a game and gives me opportunities to play that other games don't. You not liking something does not imply that that thing is bad. Just that your tastes are different than others.

[Easy_Lee]

Taking armor into account when setting DCs isn't punishing it, it's basic simulation. There's also plenty of cases where the heavy armor would actually help, starting with basically any check used to resist being moved or to stop something from moving. If there's any punishment for heavy armor it's the tiny AC difference.

First off, it's actually easier to shove someone over who's wearing heavy armor. It makes them more top-heavy and throws off their center of balance. Second, you're diverging significantly from the rules of the system you're in. I suspect most players will be caught off-guard by the idea that heavy armor imposes different DCs on them.

The real life advantage of heavy armor - not dying - is well worth the drawbacks. But if you make that stuff realistic in 5e and it's only worth one extra point of AC, no reasoning player will wear it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The real life advantage of heavy armor - not dying - is well worth the drawbacks. But if you make that stuff realistic in 5e and it's only worth one extra point of AC, no reasoning player will wear it.

Another case where adding realism detracts from realism. In reality, most combatants wore as heavy armor as they could get a hold of (especially once the era of plate armor started). Then again, most combatants weren't also scaling mountains, swimming across rivers, or fighting dragons. I find "realism" a pretty poor gauge of what will make for an enjoyable game.

[KorvinStarmast]

Climbing an apple tree is much easier than climbing a palm tree, for example. Good point, and the onus is on the DM to set the DC.

In general, treat the mechanics as from a whole separate game (like moving from 2e to 3e--basically all the mechanics had to change beyond the most abstract). Yeah. For me, going from 1E and a bit of 2e to 3E was both interesting and annoying.

One does have to wonder--if you oh so superior life-forms (sarcasm) avoid D&D like the plague (bolded section of quote), why are you posting on the 5e sub-forum about 5e D&D concerns? Haters are gonna hate. (Sort of like my thing about Kender, in truth. )

[Pex]

Was this a poorly chosen example on your behalf? Because the DC for identifying a troll should absolutely be dependent on the setting, and vary greatly from DM to DM. You used climbing a tree as an example previously. Why should every tree have the same DC to climb?

If the DM describes the task as hard/easy, or having DC 20/10, could you not update your mental image of the tree to have fewer/more branches? Or is it only a problem for you when the DM describes the tree as having lots of branches, and then announces the climb DC to be 20 when you try?

In one DM's game I can play a character with 10 ST no proficiency in athletics and when I want to climb a tree I climb a tree. In another DM's game I can have 14 ST proficiency in athletics and when I want to climb a tree I have to roll an athletics check to make a DC 15. My character's ability to climb a tree depends on who is DM that day, not how I build my character comparing it to established rules of climbing a tree. I should not have to ask each new DM I play with how does climbing trees work.

Remember, the point isn't specifically about climbing trees. It's skill use in general. Lack of consistent DCs means I have no control over my character's ability to do stuff. It's perfectly fine if it's established trees have a climb DC and never autosuccess. I can sing glory glory hallelujah if a palm tree has a DC higher than an apple tree. However, I want it established what those DC are, not apple tree DC 10 palm tree DC 15 for one DM but apple tree DC 15 palm tree DC 20 for a second DM.

[Knaight]

One does have to wonder--if you oh so superior life-forms (sarcasm) avoid D&D like the plague (bolded section of quote), why are you posting on the 5e sub-forum about 5e D&D concerns? It comes across as quite supercilious when you put it that way. I personally find that D&D (5e in particular, although 4e was fun for what it did) does the vast majority of what I'm looking for in a game and gives me opportunities to play that other games don't. You not liking something does not imply that that thing is bad. Just that your tastes are different than others.

I didn't say it was a bad game, nor even imply something about "superior life-forms". It's also exactly a matter of tastes being different, particularly in terms of 3.x D&D. D&D as a system is specialized for people who like a particular narrow slice of RPGs a great deal. The learning curve is terrible if your goal is to quickly pick it up as a system, run a short game, and then play something else. On the other hand, if you really like dungeon crawling and want to do a lot of it, if you really like high fantasy settings and want to play in them a lot, and if you generally are in a position where sticking with the same game (and possibly the same campaign) for years makes sense that learning curve starts looking like an asset - particularly if mechanical variety is particularly valuable to you.

It's just that one of the quirks of this specialization is that D&D players end up weirdly ill suited to switch between editions of D&D, because D&D players as a whole tend not to have a lot of practice switching between different styles of game. That's worth pointing out in terms of the validity of the specific concept that DMs new to 5e are likely to be the best DMs for 5e. It's writing FORTRAN in any language, to use your analogy - but these people know FORTRAN a lot better than most know any of their half dozen preferred languages.

As for why I'm posting, while I don't particularly like D&D it's the lingua franca of the RPG hobby. It's the one everyone knows, and there's a lot of interesting discussion to be had about design around it. Plus, I like 5e a great deal more than any previous edition, and for every edition there's individual design decisions that I can really respect, even if it's a matter of being very well designed for a type of game play I don't particularly enjoy.

[Unoriginal]

Just to say, if you are capable of wearing a plate armor, by RAW it does not affect the DC nor the roll for swimming.

So if someone wants to change a DC because you're wearing one, it's not a "dumb rule", nor a ruling, it's a personal houserule.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I didn't say it was a bad game, nor even imply something about "superior life-forms". It's also exactly a matter of tastes being different, particularly in terms of 3.x D&D. D&D as a system is specialized for people who like a particular narrow slice of RPGs a great deal. The learning curve is terrible if your goal is to quickly pick it up as a system, run a short game, and then play something else. On the other hand, if you really like dungeon crawling and want to do a lot of it, if you really like high fantasy settings and want to play in them a lot, and if you generally are in a position where sticking with the same game (and possibly the same campaign) for years makes sense that learning curve starts looking like an asset - particularly if mechanical variety is particularly valuable to you.

It's just that one of the quirks of this specialization is that D&D players end up weirdly ill suited to switch between editions of D&D, because D&D players as a whole tend not to have a lot of practice switching between different styles of game. That's worth pointing out in terms of the validity of the specific concept that DMs new to 5e are likely to be the best DMs for 5e. It's writing FORTRAN in any language, to use your analogy - but these people know FORTRAN a lot better than most know any of their half dozen preferred languages.

As for why I'm posting, while I don't particularly like D&D it's the lingua franca of the RPG hobby. It's the one everyone knows, and there's a lot of interesting discussion to be had about design around it. Plus, I like 5e a great deal more than any previous edition, and for every edition there's individual design decisions that I can really respect, even if it's a matter of being very well designed for a type of game play I don't particularly enjoy.

I can understand that. I guess I was just annoyed by the repeated attitude that seems to come across that says that D&D is bad, not just not to someone's taste which was what I picked up from that irrelevant-seeming comment. I apologize--my reaction was to something not said. I think that you underestimate players though. Most people are pretty flexible if they have a reason to be. Those who get locked into their old ways usually just haven't realized that there are other ways to play or that things are different in this game than in other similar ones.

[jas61292]

Just to say, if you are capable of wearing a plate armor, by RAW it does not affect the DC nor the roll for swimming.

So if someone wants to change a DC because you're wearing one, it's not a "dumb rule", nor a ruling, it's a personal houserule.

Not really. As has been mentioned, it is a matter of how you define a task. Do you define it as "swimming through a river" or do you define it as "swimming through a river in plate armor?" While some people may be quick to say one or the other, I bet many people who prefer the former wouldn't have a problem changing the DC in situations where you replace "in plate armor" with "while carrying a heavy treasure chest," or "while wearing scuba flippers."

Armor is important to a character, but it is still an external element that could effect how they interact with the world around them. RAW, DCs are based on the situations, and what a situation is is up top the DM. Whether or not this includes things like armor may vary, while still being RAW.

[Laurefindel]

Not really. As has been mentioned, it is a matter of how you define a task. Do you define it as "swimming through a river" or do you define it as "swimming through a river in plate armor?" (...)

Armour (well, some of them) impose disadvantage on Stealth checks. That we know.

This leads me to believe that the difficulty class of the task at hand is not supposed to change based on whether you are wearing armour or not. The passive Perception score (the Dexterity (Stealth) check DC) of your opponent does not increase if you are wearing cumbersome armour in this particular example, and I don't think it should be different with swimming across a river, or climbing a tree. If armour is a handicap, the game interprets it as disadvantage on ability checks.

DC varies with the nature of the obstacle. More perceptive enemies will be more difficult to sneak by, torrential rivers will be harder to cross, smooth and branchless trees will be harder to climb, but the disadvantage on stealth for heavy(ish) armours seem to set a precedent that handicap (height, weight, encumbrance etc) affects dice roll rather than DC.

Should a heavy-armoured adventurer suffer disadvantage on swim checks? Probably, but the RaW don't specifically call for it to my knowledge.

[greenstone]

Two blind dudes attacking each other.

Both roll normally due to advantage/disadvantage canceling out.

Absolutely silly.

How would you do it?

And would your way of doing it result in rolling miss after miss after miss, wasting the time of everyone at the table?

[Eric Diaz]

Many "dumb" rules turn out to be a matter of opinion... Let me propose one I've never seen debated: starvation and dehydration.

Starvation and dehydration do not cause damage. Instead of losing HP, a character gets exhausted after a few days without food or water (although your max HP is halved after a while), which means 10th level characters are as likely to die of starvation as 1st level characters if they have the same Constitution (even though a falling from 70 meters will certainly kill the first and not the second). Hit Points - the usual gauge of survivability - aren't important.

The same isn't entirely true for water, as a character can survive longer with little water if he has a good Constitution saving throw - which might be affected by proficiency (which is determined by level).

(BTW, first post in this forum :smallsmile: )

[Saeviomage]

Hmm, dumb rules:
1. Exhaustion. It's an interesting idea, but the implementation is massively flawed. From the level of magic required to remove it (a 5th level spell?), to the effects that it has, to the times when it's applied, it's basically always ridiculous. Want to run a marathon? You can't! Because you become immobilized within the first hour of running even if you have a 20 con! Drank a bit less than one gallon of water today? Now you're (probably) exhausted! Drink a bit less water for 3 days? Now you're dead! In my mind, however, the biggest flaw is that the first things that happen when you're exhausted from dropping out of your marathon? You become bad at remembering historical facts (ie - an int skill check). But you can still fight just fine... and run at full speed...

2. The skill system. Starting characters are basically woefully inept at any skill they try, which might be fine, except these are supposed to be what your character has spent his entire non-adventuring life practising. At an absolute best, you have a +7 skill modifier (maximum starting stat for a character using point buy, plus racial, plus expertise in the skill), which means that you still routinely fail at tasks that an untrained, inept commoner will succeed at half the time (ie - +0 modifier vs a DC 10). You can't get new skills without spending a feat... and then you can only ever get 3. At high levels, the differential between untrained and specialized skills gets so high that either one group are not challenged or the other group may as well not try, so I hope you picked the right skills to train at level 1! A lack of sample DCs basically chucks a budding DM in at the deep end... and many DMs get things wrong. DC 15 means you want most people to fail, it's not a good DC to default to. Heck, like I pointed out above, DC10 means you want the best of the best to fail 10% of the time. I just can't imagine (for example) a top mountain climber failing to climb even the toughest of trees.

3. Illusion spells. So vague that any time you cast one, you will have to ask the DM if what you want to do is possible. In fact, that's SO key for illusion spells that you should probably intensively quiz your DM before you pick even a single one, lest you end up with a DM that thinks it makes sense if monsters just walk through every illusion you cast, ignoring it, but will never ever ignore any other spell.

4. The rules in the DMG on building strongholds. Apparently if you aren't constantly on a building site, the builders... destroy reality or something? Because if your builders work for a single day, then you leave the site... suddenly you have 2 days MORE work to do than when you first started. And there is no way to avoid this.

5. The rules in the DMG for running a business. Number 1 - it's impossible to make a profit from a business if you're not there. Apparently you just let people walk off with all the profits.The most profitable business in the world is a hunting lodge, because it has the lowest upkeep and nothing else matters. Forget about running a shop or a noble estate. Hunting lodges are just the best. The best possible way to run any business is to visit it every other day for a single day at a time. This means you roll on the table each day you visit, and have a 40% chance to score fixed profits each time, and a single days profit (in the case of the hunting lodge) is 10-300 times it's maintenance cost.

6. Expenses. Lets say you decide, instead of running a wildly lucrative hunting lodge, to practise a profession, such as carpentry, blacksmithing or the like. This lets you have a low lifestyle. You get to eat simple food, live in a flophouse and hang out with crooks and lowlifes. Suppose instead that you decide to rough it using the survival skill? Apparently this gets you a cottage in a middle class neighbourhood and lets you associate with wealthy merchants, skilled tradespeople (who get a low lifestyle, remember?) and military officers. Finally if you decide to live off the performance skill, you're a rock star and automatically get a wealthy lifestyle out of it.

Oh, wait, except there's a second place where practicing a profession gets you a moderate lifestyle if you do it solo, and a comfortable lifestyle if you are part of a guild...

Of course this is all totally academic, because you can cast a 1st level spell each day and live like royalty.

[Emay Ecks]

Hmm, dumb rules:
5. The rules in the DMG for running a business. Number 1 - it's impossible to make a profit from a business if you're not there. Apparently you just let people walk off with all the profits.The most profitable business in the world is a hunting lodge, because it has the lowest upkeep and nothing else matters. Forget about running a shop or a noble estate. Hunting lodges are just the best. The best possible way to run any business is to visit it every other day for a single day at a time. This means you roll on the table each day you visit, and have a 40% chance to score fixed profits each time, and a single days profit (in the case of the hunting lodge) is 10-300 times it's maintenance cost.

6. Expenses. Lets say you decide, instead of running a wildly lucrative hunting lodge, to practise a profession, such as carpentry, blacksmithing or the like. This lets you have a low lifestyle. You get to eat simple food, live in a flophouse and hang out with crooks and lowlifes. Suppose instead that you decide to rough it using the survival skill? Apparently this gets you a cottage in a middle class neighbourhood and lets you associate with wealthy merchants, skilled tradespeople (who get a low lifestyle, remember?) and military officers. Finally if you decide to live off the performance skill, you're a rock star and automatically get a wealthy lifestyle out of it.

Oh, wait, except there's a second place where practicing a profession gets you a moderate lifestyle if you do it solo, and a comfortable lifestyle if you are part of a guild...

Of course this is all totally academic, because you can cast a 1st level spell each day and live like royalty.

Yeah I have never liked an ounce of how the economy as written works in 5e (or really any d&d).
-Gems/Jewelry/Art has an undisputed value that everyone knows and agrees on, and will pay full price for/accept as valid currency.
-All crafts are equally difficult to learn. It take the same amount of time and money (250 days at an extra gold per day) to learn to professionally cook or paint as it does to brew potions/poisons or to play cards.
-The cost of materials for crafting is based on market value, not weight or material used (wooden shields are just as expensive and crafting intensive as an iron shield or a pure golden one). Making an optical lens takes 20 days if you decide to place it in a magnifying glass, and 200 if you decide you want it in a spyglass instead. A suit of plate armor for a dragonborn (obviously custom fitted) costs and weighs the same amount as plate armor for a gnome.
-Characters work 5x faster at making magical items than non-magical ones. Magical items have a consistent price with other magic items.
-Having a child immediately knocks a family down a living condition, and every two after knocks them down another one. Peasant families with more than 2 children must live in wretched conditions (4 sp a day income , can't afford a squalid lifestyle for 5 people). With the low life expectancy of peasants (monster attacks notwithstanding) almost every farming village should be a ghost town.

[Pelle]

In one DM's game I can play a character with 10 ST no proficiency in athletics and when I want to climb a tree I climb a tree. In another DM's game I can have 14 ST proficiency in athletics and when I want to climb a tree I have to roll an athletics check to make a DC 15. My character's ability to climb a tree depends on who is DM that day, not how I build my character comparing it to established rules of climbing a tree. I should not have to ask each new DM I play with how does climbing trees work.

Remember, the point isn't specifically about climbing trees. It's skill use in general. Lack of consistent DCs means I have no control over my character's ability to do stuff. It's perfectly fine if it's established trees have a climb DC and never autosuccess. I can sing glory glory hallelujah if a palm tree has a DC higher than an apple tree. However, I want it established what those DC are, not apple tree DC 10 palm tree DC 15 for one DM but apple tree DC 15 palm tree DC 20 for a second DM.

I totally understand why you don't like, and that's ok. I just don't share your view of valuing consistency between GMs over flexibility, for different reasons. Sorry to be bothering you about it, I'm asking because I have players who also like to know exactly what their characters are capable of, so I find your opinions interesting.

One of the characters were captured by the BBEG, being questioned in a polite way, but completely at his mercy. A player insisted that the +17 Diplomancer could make the BBEG friendly with a DC 25. In my mind this situation was similar to the classic "convince the King to hand over the throne". I'm not happy with this attitude that the rulebook gives the final DC, irrespective of the circumstances and DM judgement.

In 5e, you can't really invest in skills one rank at the time, just choose whether you want to be relatively good or not in one (proficiency, ability scores allocation). You may not like this either, but that's another topic. Is it then really important for you to know all the exact DCs at character generation? Could you not instead ask the DM if this is either a heroic game (climbing a tree is automatic, etc), or a more realistic game (mundane things can be challenges), and make your choices from there?

Based on your second paragraph, am I correct that the following would still be a big issue for you?
- In one game the DM has a heroic tone, which is announced before chargen. The DM is very good at describing situations and communicating the challenges you face so that you are on the same page with regards to DCs (example climbing an apple tree is easy/automatic).
- In another game the DM has a more realistic tone, which is announced before chargen. The DM is very good at describing situations and communicating the challenges you face so that you are on the same page with regards to DCs (example, climbing an apple tree is medium hard/DC 15).

Why is it a problem to accept that different games/DMs have different tone? If there are inconsistency within the same game or lack of communication I can sympatize.

[ChampionWiggles]

Right. Hence the line about taking a vow of non-flaming. I do find the people who (like bad programmers who can write FORTRAN in any language) play 3.X (which is the usual offender) in other editions and expect things to work "just like they're used to" to be quite annoying. I've had DMs like that and played with people like that (as well as seen it time and time again on the forums).

Currently in a campaign with a DM that still has problems embracing some of the new stuff. Currently still using the "A natural 20 = auto success at whatever you were rolling". Granted a 20 on the die probably means you'll still succeed, but not always. The reason this was so frustrating for me was I was trying to cast a Dissonant Whispers with DC 15 and I threw on a Cutting Words of 7 against a werewolf. He rolled 20 on the die and ruled that the reduction from Cutting Words didn't apply to nat 20's. So 2 valuable resources of mine were wasted in a situation where they would've worked, but didn't simply because of the nat 20 rule. It was especially frustrating because earlier in the session we were trying to scout ahead and so the Shadow Monk cast "Pass without Trace" and I cast "Invisibility" to help make sure the monk wasn't detected. Monk rolled a 28 Stealth check and again, the werewolf (pretty sure the same one) rolled a 20 on the die, so he detected the monk and attacked her and infected her with lycanthropy...simply because of the "nat 20 = auto success" ruling, because otherwise the werewolf still wouldn't have detected our monk. So 4 resources, that would have otherwise worked and been put to good use, were wasted because of "LOL RANDOM" and it's kind of dissuaded me from wanting to stay in the campaign.

Oh and he kept Skill Challenges from 4e, which I never liked, so there's that.

Sorry, that's not really "Dumb rules", but more just related to what PhoenixPhyre was saying. I guess you could say it's "Dumb House Rules"

[Zalabim]

I don't expect this to help matters any, but Cutting Words doesn't work on Saving Throws. Only attack rolls, ability checks, or damage rolls.

[Easy_Lee]

Could you not instead ask the DM if this is either a heroic game (climbing a tree is automatic, etc), or a more realistic game (mundane things can be challenges), and make your choices from there?

I think I'll make another thread about this. I've talked about it before, but it deserves its own topic. In short, I don't think it's wise for WotC to encourage too much of this.

[Jophiel]

How would you do it?

And would your way of doing it result in rolling miss after miss after miss, wasting the time of everyone at the table?
I would give both disadvantage and they would miss a lot because that's what happens when two blind people are swinging at one another. I would also hope that someone has a better moment of inspiration than "Let's spend an hour whiffing instead of coming up with a Plan B because blindly flailing about is a bad idea." Two people being blinded should be a reason for creative problem solving, not a fight as usual because everything cancels out.

[Pex]

Why is it a problem to accept that different games/DMs have different tone? If there are inconsistency within the same game or lack of communication I can sympatize.

Different tone doesn't require different rules. I've had different DMs of Pathfinder games. For one DM his games were figuratively epic as two successive campaigns dealt with the gameworld's Armageddon and then Apocalypse. Another DM's campaign was beer and pretzels dungeon crawls. A third DM's game was Fantasy. My current Pathfinder DM's campaign is sandbox. They all used the same rules. House rules exist, of course, but any of my characters could fit into any of the campaigns plus or minus a few magic items for Armageddon/Apocalypse. That was admittedly very high powered.

In my 5E games the characters are not interchangeable because their competency in tasks would change based on the DM. I don't have to roll to climb a tree in one DM's game, but I would in another. Great Weapon Style works on smites in one game but not another. I can identify monsters in one game but not another. That lack of consistency is a bother to me.

[strangebloke]

So far seems as if most of the complaints lie outside of combat... which is understandable, given how little of the rulebook deals with that.

[Laurefindel]

Different tone doesn't require different rules. I've had different DMs of Pathfinder games. For one DM his games were figuratively epic as two successive campaigns dealt with the gameworld's Armageddon and then Apocalypse. Another DM's campaign was beer and pretzels dungeon crawls. A third DM's game was Fantasy. My current Pathfinder DM's campaign is sandbox. They all used the same rules. House rules exist, of course, but any of my characters could fit into any of the campaigns plus or minus a few magic items for Armageddon/Apocalypse. That was admittedly very high powered.

In my 5E games the characters are not interchangeable because their competency in tasks would change based on the DM. I don't have to roll to climb a tree in one DM's game, but I would in another. Great Weapon Style works on smites in one game but not another. I can identify monsters in one game but not another. That lack of consistency is a bother to me.

I symapthise with your situation Pex. But yeah, 5e relies heavily on the DM's ability to make a judgement call, which is both its greatest strength and its greatest weakness.

Still, by the "rules" of the book, you only roll when the outcome is uncertain and meaningful complications occur on a failure. Enforcing a DC 15 (medium difficulty class) ability check to climb a tree if there is no pressure to do it fast/well, or no significant narrative consequences for failing; that's not "playing the game differently", that's ignoring the presented guidelines. Even if there is a reason to roll, climbing a tree that kids can climb (who arguably are not proficient in Athletics nor have a STR score above 8) should not be set at medium difficulty class (DC 15). More like easy (DC 10) or very easy (DC 5). If the difficulty really is medium (DC 15), then that's not the same tree my kids climb when they come back from school.

With that in mind, 5e is a bit harder to codify and I understand why the designers left the DC guidelines at very easy/easy/medium/hard/very hard/ nearly impossible. Rolling for everything with high DCs is a reflex we get from 3e era. So while 5e is vague, it is not without rules and guidelines. It's just that DMs often skip that chapter thinking that they know how to run the skill system because they are Pathfinder veterans.

[Pelle]

Different tone doesn't require different rules. I've had different DMs of Pathfinder games. For one DM his games were figuratively epic as two successive campaigns dealt with the gameworld's Armageddon and then Apocalypse. Another DM's campaign was beer and pretzels dungeon crawls. A third DM's game was Fantasy. My current Pathfinder DM's campaign is sandbox. They all used the same rules. House rules exist, of course, but any of my characters could fit into any of the campaigns plus or minus a few magic items for Armageddon/Apocalypse. That was admittedly very high powered.

In my 5E games the characters are not interchangeable because their competency in tasks would change based on the DM. I don't have to roll to climb a tree in one DM's game, but I would in another. Great Weapon Style works on smites in one game but not another. I can identify monsters in one game but not another. That lack of consistency is a bother to me.

The need for consistency between different games, rather than just accepting the differences and adjusting is still alien to me. I guess I'm lucky that my group of friends only play with each other, and that we don't change DMs much.

So do you have any tips for a DM to make it easy for the players to understand what their characters capabilities are in 5e (other than generating a lot of tables 3.e style)?

[Easy_Lee]

The need for consistency between different games, rather than just accepting the differences and adjusting is still alien to me. I guess I'm lucky that my group of friends only play with each other, and that we don't change DMs much.

So do you have any tips for a DM to make it easy for the players to understand what their characters capabilities are in 5e (other than generating a lot of tables 3.e style)?

Adjusting to a new table is more difficult this edition than it was in, say, 3.5e. That's due to more flexible rules that give the DM leeway to make the campaign world the way he wants it to be. I have a few issues with this, most importantly:

It contradicts the stated goals of Adventurer's League.
They didn't give DMs any sheets or rule cards or whatever to hand out that explain how that DM's world works.

In other words, I don't think it fits with what WotC is trying to do this edition, and they didn't give us any resources to make table-swaps easier on the players.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Adjusting to a new table is more difficult this edition than it was in, say, 3.5e. That's due to more flexible rules that give the DM leeway to make the campaign world the way he wants it to be. I have a few issues with this, most importantly:

It contradicts the stated goals of Adventurer's League.
They didn't give DMs any sheets or rule cards or whatever to hand out that explain how that DM's world works.

In other words, I don't think it fits with what WotC is trying to do this edition, and they didn't give us any resources to make table-swaps easier on the players.

But that's AL's problem, not the game's problem. Anything that isn't locked down tight will suffer the same problem. Locking things down tight hurts people who aren't playing AL. I prefer how it is now. If you can't handle table-to-table variance, then don't play AL. Anytime you're playing the same character in ostensibly the same world with different DMs, you're going to have large variation. That's baked into the cake.

Note: since there are a lot of bad DMs out there who disregard the rules anyway (like making you roll climb checks on a regular basis), adding more rules won't dissuade them. They'll just ignore those rules too.

[Aldarin]

I think it's dumb that the premade stats and point buy can't get you to more than 18 stats. That's why I always roll.

[mephnick]

I think it's dumb that the premade stats and point buy can't get you to more than 18 stats. That's why I always roll.

The game is balanced around lower stats though? Like you don't need an 18 in any stat til like level 12, if at all.

[BurgerBeast]

I see your logic but we might have to agree to disagree here. Where do you draw the line between the task and the character attempting it? How do you decide which factors belong to the task and which to the character? Just in terms of general semantics it's equally true to say "the task is swimming and the player is doing the task in armour" and "the task is swimming in armour".

Where I draw the line is not relevant. The designers of the gamne drew a line. That line is relevant. The designers of the game assign a swim DC that is independent of armour. To account for variations in armour, the desingers use a different method than adjusting the DC.


The way they have chosen to handle armour, though, is that aside from disadvantage for stealth (because stealth checks are always against a predetermined Passive Perception score that's intrinsic to another creature, rather than a DC chosen by the DM), armour no longer has an effect on ability checks.

That would be because, RAW, armour check penalties do not apply to those checks. My suggestion would be to apply disadvantage, which is a DMs prerogative, and is consistent.


So surely it's reasonable to view the task as either "swimming" or "swimming in armour" and set the dc accordingly.

You can get the same effect by penalizing the roll, which is eually reasonable, and has the added benefit of keeping the assignment of DCs consistent.

There is a clear pattern in how DCs and skill modifiers are used. If two resolution methods are mathematically identical, then you’d be best served to use the method that matches the logic of the designers, instead of bringing in a new system that is at odds with the logic of the designers.


I do not think the designers have done it your way in even a single case.

you have the right be wrong.


There's advantage and disadvantage. There's guidance (and presumably a negative guidance curse). However, there is no example of using flat +/- modifiers to represent circumstantial difficulty.

Cover is handled in this way.


It's always done by setting the DC, then assigning disadvantage or advantage when its required or appropriate. Flat modifiers on the roll are always more or less permanent, not circumstantial. In the example of the dwarf on the ledge, a likely module answer would be that characters wearing heavy armor have disadvantage on the roll. Other circumstances might only require characters of a certain height or weight to roll at all, like a small creature's traps being set to go off for 75+ pounds on the trigger, or target at 4' or above height.

This is different, and I think you know it. The applicability is restricted, but in the event that a roll is used, there is one, and only one, DC. Period.


Anyway, my example was used because I'm not aware of any official answer regarding it so far. Your constant appeal to authority rings doubly false. The designers aren't claiming to be an authority on setting DCs for your table, and haven't weighed in supporting your position. It's grating.

And yet it’s true. Fancy that.


That halfling has to work harder to get 18 strength, has disadvantage on attack rolls with Heavy weapons, only has 25' base speed, and is going to have to work a lot harder to reach the top shelf than the dragonborn though. They have a lot of differences in related capabilities based on their natural abilities, even if all their ability scores were the same. There are some areas where they're the same and some areas where they are not the same.

Nice try. My point remains. 18 strength means exactly the same thing, whether it is a halfling, a dragonborn, or a horse. 18 strength for a halfling is exactly the same as 18 strength for a dragonborn.


My way of thinking, as outlined, is that there's multiple choices. Putting that aside...

There are multiple choices. But the way the game is desinged, tasks are given a DC. One DC. Individual and circumstancial differences modify the roll; they do not modify the DC.


The hill dwarf does get more HP, all dwarves resist poison,

So what?


and the value of 18 charisma in a talk varies a great deal based on how the mark feels about you and how you use it. Even having the same attribute, it matters what you can do, or attempt to do, with it. We might have 18 charisma for a commoner versus 18 charisma for a noble, or 18 charisma for a drow elf versus 18 charisma for a high elf. It might be DC 20 for the prince to convince the king to give over command of the armies and impossible for a pauper to do the same, even if they have otherwise identical character sheets.

Again, one DC. I think you are aware of the problem because you avoided saying DC 20 for the prince and (for example) DC 30 for the pauper. That’s because, if the DM decides that the task is possible for the pauper, he’s do better to gice the pauper a penalty to the roll and keep the DC at 20.


There's a wealth of examples of ways the designers get across that this race is stronger, or this class is tougher, or this character is better at that thing.

Agreed. But is never by giving more than one DC for the same objective.


Sorry for the double post. I do agree with you on this. I just don't think we agree on what constitutes "individual circumstances". I think this term extends to ability score (and by extension race), proficiency, and anything that specifically gives advantage or disadvantage - and no further. Everything else is part of the definition of the task.

Feel free to give an example and we can discuss it.


Exactly. Is the pauper's disadvantage in the task of persuading the nobleman intrinsic to the pauper? Is it something to do with the nobleman? No, it's the combination of the two that causes the difficulty. In other words it's a function of the situation in the fiction, so it should factor into the DC.

But, by design, it does not. By design it is a modification to the roll.


I could see some exceptions to this in the social skills... a higher DC for a dwarven criminal to convince the elven king to help them than an elven noble... would seem to be more of a DC issue than 'just' disadvantage

But it’s not. I would posit that you are thinking that a modification of -5 (which is roughly the effect of disadvantage) is not a big enough penalty. But that just means you need a bigger penalty. It is not cause to re-design the game.


I could see some such things making a check impossible (or auto success), but for conditions outside that I'd use advantage/disadvantage with a static DC because it's easier on everybody. For me, DCs are not static--character actions can ease or bolster the challenge of subsequent checks. Win the king's trust by doing stuff for him, then the difficulty to persuade him goes down. Irritate him beforehand and the difficulty later goes up.

I’m cool with all of this. But by design, the DC stay s the same and earning trust provides a bonus while irritating him provides a penalty. I’m not saying it’s better way. It’s just the way it’s done.


Published modules are not the be all end all of playing the game.

Agreed.


Lets see...
...
The first dragon/tiamat adventure book has different DCs for people to infiltrate a cultist camp depending on which characters fought someone in the camp previously.

Cool… supposing this is true, we have one example. One.


You are right but armour still doesn't need to be included in the character's side of the equation. You are right that the ledge doesn't change depending on who is walking on it, but the DC isn't the DC of the ledge, it's the DC of the task. And the task "walk along the narrow ledge" is different from the task "walk along the narrow ledge in heavy armour".

Perhaps you’re missing my point. I agree with you that it does not, in principle, have to be this way. I am saying that, by design, it is this way.


Taking armor into account when setting DCs isn't punishing it, it's basic simulation. There's also plenty of cases where the heavy armor would actually help, starting with basically any check used to resist being moved or to stop something from moving. If there's any punishment for heavy armor it's the tiny AC difference.

I agree with you that it is basic simulation. I’m just pointing out that, in order to stay consistent with the way the game is designed, you’d be better served to use armour to modify the roll in some way than to adjust the DC.


Not really. As has been mentioned, it is a matter of how you define a task. Do you define it as "swimming through a river" or do you define it as "swimming through a river in plate armor?" While some people may be quick to say one or the other, I bet many people who prefer the former wouldn't have a problem changing the DC in situations where you replace "in plate armor" with "while carrying a heavy treasure chest," or "while wearing scuba flippers."

Sure, it is up to how you define the task. But them there’s the way the designers define and treat tasks. If you want to maintain consistency, you’d do well to attempt to align your way with the designer’s way. This promotes consistency and clarity. If you have any concern about this at all, it helps to start by recognizing how the designers approach DCs.

*sorry for any instances of "desingers" instead of "designers" - annoying typo that kept resurfacing

[Naanomi]

Point of clarification: an 18 Strength horse can carry way more than an 18 Strength human because of size category

[Pex]

But that's AL's problem, not the game's problem. Anything that isn't locked down tight will suffer the same problem. Locking things down tight hurts people who aren't playing AL. I prefer how it is now. If you can't handle table-to-table variance, then don't play AL. Anytime you're playing the same character in ostensibly the same world with different DMs, you're going to have large variation. That's baked into the cake.

Note: since there are a lot of bad DMs out there who disregard the rules anyway (like making you roll climb checks on a regular basis), adding more rules won't dissuade them. They'll just ignore those rules too.

Bad DMs will ruin any game, but DM requiring a roll to climb a tree does not equal a bad DM. The game tells the DM to make everything up, so that is what he does. Not every DM will see a particular situation the same way, ergo one DM's no roll needed is another DM requires a DC check with DC varying depending on who is the DM. However, had there been a simple table for climbing (Tree DC 0, Knotted Rope DC 5, Slippery/Not Knotted Rope/Wall Corner DC 10, Wall with handholds artificial or natural DC 15, etc.) there wouldn't be any issue at all.

[Stray]

However, had there been a simple table for climbing (Tree DC 0, Knotted Rope DC 5, Slippery/Not Knotted Rope/Wall Corner DC 10, Wall with handholds artificial or natural DC 15, etc.) there wouldn't be any issue at all.

And if there was such a table and a DM decided that the tree they have in mind is not that easy to climb and ignored it, would you call them a bad DM?

[smcmike]

However, had there been a simple table for climbing (Tree DC 0, Knotted Rope DC 5, Slippery/Not Knotted Rope/Wall Corner DC 10, Wall with handholds artificial or natural DC 15, etc.) there wouldn't be any issue at all.

Trees vary. Most are harder to climb than a knotted rope. For most of those that are easier than a knotted rope, there is no need for a check.

[Saeviomage]

And if there was such a table and a DM decided that the tree they have in mind is not that easy to climb and ignored it, would you call them a bad DM?

If your character is in a forest and you say you climb a tree and the DM proclaims it's a DC 10 without further description... then they are a DM who hasn't thought out the implications of their ruling. DC 10 is something that an individual with training and a high degree of natural aptitude often fails. The fact that the rules describe dc 10 as an 'easy' task is idiotic.

5e's skill system in general is garbage. Tool proficiencies represent 2000 hours of intensive training with a professional, but apparently by the end of it you get a 10% swing in your odds of success at a given task. Normal skills are apparently so difficult to get that even 2000 hours of intensive training can't give you them... but they still only adjust your odds by 10%. The whole automatic success advice is just a poor patch to a terrible system, and it comes pretty close to saying "the skill system doesn't really work, so just decide whether characters succeed or fail without it".

This is the reason people make up their own patches like "you can't roll if you're not proficient" and "no retries". Fundamentally the skill system doesn't produce useful results as written.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Bad DMs will ruin any game, but DM requiring a roll to climb a tree does not equal a bad DM. The game tells the DM to make everything up, so that is what he does. Not every DM will see a particular situation the same way, ergo one DM's no roll needed is another DM requires a DC check with DC varying depending on who is the DM. However, had there been a simple table for climbing (Tree DC 0, Knotted Rope DC 5, Slippery/Not Knotted Rope/Wall Corner DC 10, Wall with handholds artificial or natural DC 15, etc.) there wouldn't be any issue at all.

There's a rule in the PHB that climbing does not take checks "except for particularly smooth surfaces, where the DM may decide to call for one" (wording paraphrased because I'm AFB). Trees no way fall under that exception clause.

Your DMs either a) haven't read the PHB or DMG, b) have decided to go their own way (house rules), or c) are still suck in the 3.5 "must roll checks for everything" mentality. All of those except b) are signs of a bad 5e dm. And b) wouldn't change if a table were given.

Also, you'd need a table entry for every surface/possibility for every skill. No thanks. Extra wasted book space 90% of the time and slow resolution in the rest? All for something that doesn't affect anyone who plays with a consistent group? And then isn't a big deal (no single check should be a big deal) anyway? If you want tables, go ahead and make them yourself. Don't pollute the system for the rest of us please.

Additionally, not every tree, wall, task is the same even if you can describe it as being similar to one on the table. There isn't enough granularity in a table for that. You'd need modifiers, and that's something that breaks 5e's design completely.

[Telok]

There's a rule in the PHB that climbing does not take checks "except for particularly smooth surfaces, where the DM may decide to call for one" (wording paraphrased because I'm AFB). Trees no way fall under that exception clause.

I found an old spreadsheet from a while ago. It's a list of printed task DCs in the PH, DMG, Out of the Abyss, and the two dragon/tiamat adventure books. If you sort on 'action' by climb it makes for pretty funny reading.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ps6fqC-WGzkZbFix7Ak1T7VU4YUEFXJJFWXLBww2Gxg/edit?usp=sharing

[Renvir]

I found an old spreadsheet from a while ago. It's a list of printed task DCs in the PH, DMG, Out of the Abyss, and the two dragon/tiamat adventure books. If you sort on 'action' by climb it makes for pretty funny reading.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ps6fqC-WGzkZbFix7Ak1T7VU4YUEFXJJFWXLBww2Gxg/edit?usp=sharing

60 foot natural rock cliff: DC 10. 50 foot natural rock cliff: DC 15. Makes sense.

[Pex]

And if there was such a table and a DM decided that the tree they have in mind is not that easy to climb and ignored it, would you call them a bad DM?

No. It would mean that tree was special. The lack of an easy climb would be a clue, such as the tree is really a sleeping treant.


There's a rule in the PHB that climbing does not take checks "except for particularly smooth surfaces, where the DM may decide to call for one" (wording paraphrased because I'm AFB). Trees no way fall under that exception clause.

Your DMs either a) haven't read the PHB or DMG, b) have decided to go their own way (house rules), or c) are still suck in the 3.5 "must roll checks for everything" mentality. All of those except b) are signs of a bad 5e dm. And b) wouldn't change if a table were given.

Also, you'd need a table entry for every surface/possibility for every skill. No thanks. Extra wasted book space 90% of the time and slow resolution in the rest? All for something that doesn't affect anyone who plays with a consistent group? And then isn't a big deal (no single check should be a big deal) anyway? If you want tables, go ahead and make them yourself. Don't pollute the system for the rest of us please.

Additionally, not every tree, wall, task is the same even if you can describe it as being similar to one on the table. There isn't enough granularity in a table for that. You'd need modifiers, and that's something that breaks 5e's design completely.

Appendices B and C are 5 leaves of paper dedicated to pantheons and planes that needn't had been there for a Player's Handbook. That is something the DM can use in the DMG. 10 pages total that could have been used for example skill DCs and keep the same number of pages in the PHB as there currently are, and there wouldn't have been need for that many. You are also missing the forest for the tree, pun intended. I don't give a Hoover if a tree really should call for a climb check. I was annoyed by the lack of consistency because that player had to roll while if we were in a different DM's game he wouldn't have had to. I was also annoyed it was DC 15, a hard task to make. I climbed trees in my backyard when I was 4 years old. It's not that hard. The DM made up that number on the spot. It's irrelevant what the DMG had to say because the DMG already told him to make everything up himself, and he's certainly not going to take the time to hunt for relevant passages during game play for the sake of climbing a tree. I certainly wasn't going to be all rules lawyery about how it's not that hard to climb a tree.

It is impossible to have DCs for every possible instance of everything, but that is not necessary. All that's needed are a few examples for a frame reference. You can even have your precious variance of trees, to say an apple tree is DC 0 but a palm tree is DC 10. Whatever. The details don't make the argument here. A frame of reference keeps everyone in the same ballpark. Having entries for DC 0 helps to reinforce the idea to DMs that PC don't always need to roll. Showing what tasks are DC 5 and 10 also helps to teach not everything need be DC 15 "because if there's no challenge where's the fun, right?". It doesn't help to say make easy things DC 10 when different DMs have a different tolerance point of what constitutes easy. Examples in tables would facilitate.

[Knaight]

60 foot natural rock cliff: DC 10. 50 foot natural rock cliff: DC 15. Makes sense.

"Natural rock cliff" is a very big category - a smooth granite overhang that has been heavily eroded isn't remotely the same climb as an underhang chimney climb in volcanic breccia.

[Telok]

60 foot natural rock cliff: DC 10. 50 foot natural rock cliff: DC 15. Makes sense.

What's even better is the DC 11 six foot high cave ledge and the DC 10 'sheer crevasse walls' that are 40 feet high.

Things like controlling a sphere of annihilation are easier if they're contested and the check to identify a dragonborn are good too.

[Dimers]

Point Buy forbids an 18 at first level.

A revenant dwarf, genasi or Zendikar goblin can have 18 Con at first level. :smallsmile: I mean, it's not an attack stat for any class or weapon, but it's something.

I especially like a revenant dwarf stone sorcerer. For a subclass with defender features, the ability to take nigh-infinite hits is nice. For a class that uses concentration spells, very high Con is nice.


You can't learn new skills without spending a feat.

*goes back and re-reads the Downtime section* Geez, you're right. Somehow I'd lumped in skills with languages/tools.


And at least this iteration leaves the absurdity of 'well the book says... therefore jumplomancer!' absurdity far behind

(Aside from the guy who can carry around multiple tons of weight all day. :smalltongue:)


Play 3e with a 3e mindset, and 5e with a 5e mindset. You'll be happier and have more fun.

I've started designing 5e characters specifically to not be "outstanding in their field" -- to be jacks of several trades and masters of none, able to take a little action in most situations but never address any type of challenge singlehandedly. It's very different from my 3.X and 4e experience. Not wrong, but a startling change. And yes, I'm happier and have more fun than when I try to make a true expert only to get clotheslined by the system.

Aside from the fact that I dislike RPing charisma and find sorcerers difficult to make useful, a wild sorcerer works nicely. They're pawns of Fortune -- they might regulary snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, or they might breeze past a staggering task through sheer luck.

[Jerrykhor]

One dumb and funny rule I noticed is languages known. 'You are a Dwarf, therefore you know Dwarvish' or 'You are a Tiefling, you know Abyssal', and everyone knows Common whether they receive formal education or not.

I am a Chinese by race, but in my country (Malaysia), there are quite a number of Chinese who can't speak their mother tongue. A Chinese who is born and raised in USA for example, would most likely not know Mandarin either. Languages known should be granted by background, not race.

[smcmike]

One dumb and funny rule I noticed is languages known. 'You are a Dwarf, therefore you know Dwarvish' or 'You are a Tiefling, you know Abyssal', and everyone knows Common whether they receive formal education or not.

I am a Chinese by race, but in my country (Malaysia), there are quite a number of Chinese who can't speak their mother tongue. A Chinese who is born and raised in USA for example, would most likely not know Mandarin either. Languages known should be granted by background, not race.

Yeah, the language system is deeply unrealistic and pretty dumb. It always has been.

[McNinja]

Not so much a rule in the book, but the ruling by the developers that the creatures/things that conjuring spells conjure are determined by the DM, not the player.

[Naanomi]

Yeah, the language system is deeply unrealistic and pretty dumb. It always has been.
Having racial Gods with vested interests in keeping a language static across aeons and across many different worlds probably helps curtail drift

[Sigreid]

One dumb and funny rule I noticed is languages known. 'You are a Dwarf, therefore you know Dwarvish' or 'You are a Tiefling, you know Abyssal', and everyone knows Common whether they receive formal education or not.

I am a Chinese by race, but in my country (Malaysia), there are quite a number of Chinese who can't speak their mother tongue. A Chinese who is born and raised in USA for example, would most likely not know Mandarin either. Languages known should be granted by background, not race.

I think at least everyone knowing common is just to make it easier in everyone. It's a cheat like Star Trek's universal translater or Star Wars' assumption that nearly everyone understands dozens of alien languages.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think at least everyone knowing common is just to make it easier in everyone. It's a cheat like Star Trek's universal translater or Star Wars' assumption that nearly everyone understands dozens of alien languages.

Exactly. I do more with languages than most, but the party always speaks common. That's for convenience. For me, the rules for racial languages are for PCs only. Common folk may or may not speak common--only the elders of the goblin tribes might; some of the deeper dwarves speak common much like highland Scots speak English (i.e. good luck understanding them even though it's formally the same language). Wood elves and high elves speak different languages at home, but mostly know common as a second language.

In my setting, that's because there was a widespread (1/2 continent) empire that hammered in a common tongue up to about 200 years ago. Since then things have diverged, but "common" as a lingua franca or trade tongue has stuck around (mostly).

[Marcloure]

One dumb and funny rule I noticed is languages known. 'You are a Dwarf, therefore you know Dwarvish' or 'You are a Tiefling, you know Abyssal', and everyone knows Common whether they receive formal education or not.

I am a Chinese by race, but in my country (Malaysia), there are quite a number of Chinese who can't speak their mother tongue. A Chinese who is born and raised in USA for example, would most likely not know Mandarin either. Languages known should be granted by background, not race.

I like the 4E standard justification for racial languages. It is something like: "Supernal is the language of immortals. And every being can understand what a god or devil says, even without knowing the language itself. Then, when the gods spoke to mortals in the beginning of civilization, each race heard the supernal language in a way. From the sound they heard derived the mortal languages.

Also, I have tryed regional languages in a homebrew world. Didn't work. The players don't know where they are going, so most the time they will choose a random language and never use it. And I would need to be constantly thinking about the native language of any individual, rather than just look at his race.

[Stray]

No. It would mean that tree was special. The lack of an easy climb would be a clue, such as the tree is really a sleeping treant.



But it's not a clue, it's a regular, mundane pine tree, with no branches within reach. DM decides that climbing it shouldn't be easy and DC 0 is not enough, ignores the table and calls for an athletics check. Is this bad DMing? You thought you knew capabilities of your character because you memorized the tables and it's gone. What now?

[Pex]

But it's not a clue, it's a regular, mundane pine tree, with no branches within reach. DM decides that climbing it shouldn't be easy and DC 0 is not enough, ignores the table and calls for an athletics check. Is this bad DMing? You thought you knew capabilities of your character because you memorized the tables and it's gone. What now?

If it's that one tree for whatever, then whatever. If the DM is across the board changing the table DCs I want to know about it at Session 0 to decide then if I want to play or not in conjunction with everything. Changing the table DCs is not by itself the deciding factor Obey It Or Else! I can just as easily not care he did it and create my character around it where it matters for that character if at all. It's a house rule to be informed about as any other house rule. If the DM is being anal retentive playing mind/gotcha games my feet do some walking, and the existence of the table had nothing to do with the DM behaving the way he was.

[Justin Sane]

You don't (shouldn't) need to know what kind of tree it is, you just need to know how difficult the DM considers the climb.

[Naanomi]

I still don't understand how this is different than previous editions... sure there were lots of tables to 'guide' DC decisions (that often contradicted other lists or had nonsensical results... jumplomancy I'm still looking at you); but the GM had full authority to tack on any 'circumstantial modifiers' they saw fit...

Of course, in 2e and before there wasn't really a skill system at all, and what was there you could expect to fail most of the time in most cases (I played a 1e rogue long enough to fail at everything I was supposed to be good at)

[KorvinStarmast]

One dumb and funny rule I noticed is languages known. 'You are a Dwarf, therefore you know Dwarvish' or 'You are a Tiefling, you know Abyssal', and everyone knows Common whether they receive formal education or not.
That's done for ease of playability. Otherwise, the PC's might not be able to communicate with each other in game (for those who really get into immersive play ...)

I am a Chinese by race, but in my country (Malaysia), there are quite a number of Chinese who can't speak their mother tongue. A Chinese who is born and raised in USA for example, would most likely not know Mandarin either. Languages known should be granted by background, not race. Fair point nicely made.
Not so much a rule in the book, but the ruling by the developers that the creatures/things that conjuring spells conjure are determined by the DM, not the player. I can see both sides of this one. I have no strong opinion either way, but I think the idea of the spell is as per the older editions, in that the call goes to local creatures who answer the summons. In a given area, there may not be an pixies. But I can also see the player side of wanting to choose.

Having racial Gods with vested interests in keeping a language static across aeons and across many different worlds probably helps curtail drift I'd not thought of that, but it makes sense. See liturgical Latin and Greek, as well as High Slavonic, as ways to keep languages "fixed' for centuries.

[Aett_Thorn]

Maybe we should move the variable DC conversation out of this thread and get back to other dumb rules.

Like how Monk martial arts damage works on thrown daggers, but not darts.

[Dudewithknives]

Maybe we should move the variable DC conversation out of this thread and get back to other dumb rules.

Like how Monk martial arts damage works on thrown daggers, but not darts.

Also on darts, you can dual wield short swords but not a pair of darts.

[Easy_Lee]

Also on darts, you can dual wield short swords but not a pair of darts.

Also on monks, putting a buckler on one arm interferes with your martial arts but a 120 pound backpack doesn't.