So... is 5th better or worse than the '3's, or merely different...

[Battlebooze]

Who says the fighter has Inspiration?
And you didn't just use base fighter feats, you used Feats and Inspiration and Fighting Styles and Second Wind and Action Surge and all sorts of junk, while the goblins got exactly zilch. They didn't even get to use their "base" stuff from the stat block, and the fighter gets all kinds of extras. They just lined up to be killed. But to you that's somehow more fair.



That's not what you said a moment ago.

Man, they really need to add a facepalm emote.

I guess if you strip the fighter of everything that makes him a PC fighter, yes, he will get his ask kicked. There you go, I'll grant you that!

[calebrus]

Man, they really need to add a facepalm emote.

I guess if you strip the fighter of everything that makes him a PC fighter, yes, he will get his ask kicked. There you go, I'll grant you that!

Yeah, and if you strip away the STRONGEST feature that a group of goblins has going for it, which allows advantage on ranged attacks via a bonus action hide, and line them up to be killed in melee at your leisure instead of keeping them at range with their bows, then they're going to get their butts kicked.

At least my comparison took both of those issues into account by simply removing them.
And mine allows for <insert melee class here> to replace fighter, while yours doesn't.
You can't give the fighter all of his toys (and then some, Inspiration, Feats), and simultaneously take all the toys away from the goblins, and call it a fair comparison.
I shuffled the deck.
You stacked it and called it fair.

[Gritmonger]

good complaint for that thread, and I would agree with you mostly. I also figure, I got what I paid for. It was some very general information that could be used in almost any game. Maybe they will have even more campaign specific ideas in the actual adventure.

I'm curious to see how that plays out in the future. The modular make up of all the classes seems like it's ripe for alternate paths in future expansions without taking away from the core class abilities.

I felt Prestige classes where a good idea, but spiraled out of control quickly, as some classes where so obviously inferior if you didn't take a prestige class you where foolish not to. Then you had to make sure you where on the proper path right to take it from first level, you had your character planed out since level 1 making many of the "choices" nothing more than an illusion.

IMO, obviously that is a very subjective way to look at it. I just really like how the path's are implemented in 5e. I've been able to talk to my GM , or players in the games I run, and easily modify a character to be just what they where looking for, at least in the broad strokes.

Want to play a Samurai? Make a fighter and follow the code of Bushido. you don't NEED an entire "Samurai" base class to do that, but if you want that extra flavor work on an alternate path.

TL/DR: Alternate Paths and Backgrounds are good.

True - I'm finding that a lot of this is more flavor tweaks than actual gameplay tweaks - as in the thread for "exotic weapons" - I pulled chakram out as one potentially needing different rules, but really, it's dead-on emulated with a throwing axe just with the stipulation you can't really pull off a melee attack - so throwing axe, ranged only.

So far, the game I'm running hasn't suffered from a lack of options - I had a player swap from champion to battlemaster because he wanted to try it out, and found he liked it more. Didn't bother me as he hadn't really leveled (he picked Champion at third, I think, and then swapped while still third, partly because he liked the maneuvers).

[ChubbyRain]

So for the people who advocate scaling difficulties or characters of a certain competence not being allowed to roll, how would you run a party wide check?

For example, a party of four is attempting to climb a wall one at a time. One has a +11 climb, one a +7, one a +4, and one a +0. What would you make each of them roll?

With my idea... I would set it up with every non trained person can add half their prof to a target number on top of whoever is trained and everyone trained can add their prof.

Example (note, this is spitballed)(Highest DC possible is 25)

Investigation

Switch Finder (Prereq: Int 12): When you become trained in this skill you become adept at finding hidden switches. It takes you half the time to search an area when searching for a hidden switch or lever. If you search within 5' of a switch with a hidden DC of 13 + Prof Bonus or lower then you automatically find the switch.

At least 1 untrained helper = Bonus equal to half of the lowest prof bonus of the helpers.

If you have at least one trained helper you gain a bonus to the skill equal to the highest prof bonus of the ones helping.

You gain only one of the above bonuses at one time.
@@@@

So with training and a decent Int you are the Sherlock Holmes of finding switches, sometimes however you will need a Watson to help you out but that doesn't happen often.

This gets rid of the huge random chance called a d20 which can be more of a burden in a skill system than anything else.

Also, this allows the player to roleplay the ability and for the DM to respond. The player gets to be at top form and explain what she is doing, if she explains that she is looking at a spot for a switch then the DM automatically knows she will pass said DC.

This can be applied to any skill, even group climbing.

To climb the greasy glass wall which has a DC of 22 you would need someone with +6 prof and training plus the help of someone that has a prof bonus of +6. Or if the DC is 25 you would need to be trained plus have the help of another trained individual. A glass wall would be DC 19, a fantasy climber would crawl right up that.

[Knaight]

I've almost gone here a few times but decided it would be too big a derail. But yes, this, and it's worse since the DCs you're facing keep increasing.

Yeah, saves are screwy. It is nice that casters are at least somewhat worse at weak save targeting and can't reliably fire spells off hoping that the target rolls anything but a 20, but the saves getting worse between equal level characters as both of their levels go up is just weird.

Coming back to skills, I will say this for 5e - while the amount they can be trained is lackluster, at least characters get a fair few of them. The 3e problem of 2+int or 4+int classes dealing with a skill list with vastly more specific skills is gone, and good riddance. Cross class skills are also gone, and they were arguably even more obnoxious.

[Milo v3]

Yes. I like backgrounds.

I personally don't like them, since I prefer backgrounds to be flavour amplified by mechanics rather than flavour deciding mechanics.... Not sure if I have worded that right though....

[georgie_leech]

I personally don't like them, since I prefer backgrounds to be flavour amplified by mechanics rather than flavour deciding mechanics.... Not sure if I have worded that right though....

You prefer your mechanics to support the flavour you're looking for, rather than requiring specific flavour to get the mechanics you want?

[Battlebooze]

Oh lol, never mind! It's just not worth it.

[silveralen]

It prevents a particular class of problems from being in the mechanical challenges end of things, which is already the case. If there's detective work to be done, finding the people to talk to might be a mechanical challenge. If they're just standing in a known location, calling a perception check when the characters arrive on the scene is pointless. Calling it to overhear a whispered conversation at a decent distance isn't, and could actually even be one of those "contrived" high DC situations. Similarly, there's a major mechanical aspect to a fight between a party of 1st level characters and a half dozen goblins. There might as well not be for a 20th level party. That doesn't mean that mechanical challenges are gone, just that they encompass different things.

Except we are talking about a situation where people want to auto succeed at the highest DC checks you can make in system. Not routine tasks.

Yes, the argument has been the inability of people to autosucceed on dc 25-30 checks (rogue can hit 25 eventually but it is unique to the class) is a problem. Not the idea of any sort of auto success. Anyone can hit DC 10 auto success, DC 15-20 if they want to focus on skills.

[Kurald Galain]

Except we are talking about a situation where people want to auto succeed at the highest DC checks you can make in system.

No, that was never the argument. Nice straw man you've got there

Anyone can hit DC 10 auto success, DC 15-20 if they want to focus on skills.

As this thread has clearly and repeatedly shown, no, they can't.

Anyone can hit DC 10 auto success on their primary or secondary ability only, and well above a level that most campaigns play at. No character has the ability to "focus on skills" in the way you suggest. Only rogues and bards can auto succeed on DC 15, and then only on their primary ability, and then only at very high level.

Compare to most any other RPG that has skills, where auto-succeeding on an easy task is straightforward for any low-leveled character that's trained at it.

[silveralen]

As this thread has clearly and repeatedly shown, no, they can't.

Anyone can hit DC 10 auto success on their primary or secondary ability only, and well above a level that most campaigns play at. No character has the ability to "focus on skills" in the way you suggest. Only rogues and bards can auto succeed on DC 15, and then only on their primary ability, and then only at very high level.

Compare to most any other RPG that has skills, where auto-succeeding on an easy task is straightforward for any low-leveled character that's trained at it.

I would consider taking a single level of rogue to be focusing on skills within the context of 5e, given that no feats to replicate this ability exist. If that's an issue you have, I'd point out its still more forgiving than 3e (outside PF).

Rogues and bards can auto DC 15 by the early teens, technically rogue can hit 20-25 by mid teens.

Most games I play don't have autosuccess abilities, and those that do exist cost resources. There is a point where you can be logical assumed to succeed, but you need to roll just in case and because the systems typically use some sort of always possible fail state.

[Kurald Galain]

I would consider taking a single level of rogue to be focusing on skills within the context of 5e, given that no feats to replicate this ability exist.

That's a problem, then, because your ability to become competent at a skill competes with your actual class.

Rogues and bards can auto DC 15 by the early teens, technically rogue can hit 20-25 by mid teens.

Yes, yes, we are well aware that high-level rogues can be good at skills, the issue is that everybody else cannot, and that most campaigns do not start at or even reach those levels. Compare this to other systems, where any character can be good at any skill he chooses to train in, and either straight from the start or pretty early in his career.

So that's what this is about, where's that Xetheral quote again,

• Training in a skill doesn't provide a particularly noteworthy mechanical advantage over untrained characters. At low levels the mechanical difference is negligible. At high levels the difference becomes mechanically noticeable, but remains quite small compared to many players' expectations.
• Expertise, which helps address the previous problem, is only available to two classes.
• Bounded accuracy means that mid- and high-level characters are sharply limited in what can reliably be accomplished with skills in comparison to other editions.
• Extreme cases can be better modeled under the 5e rules by not requiring a roll and simply determining success and failure. And yet there is no guidance on what qualifies as an extreme-enough case. This is even more important than individual DM DC preferences, because the choice of when not to require a roll creates a discontinuity in the probability table. Characters whose bonuses relative to the DC fall near this discontinuity may have vastly different levels of mechanical effectiveness, depending solely on when a given DM decides a bonus is big enough to not require a roll.

[Fwiffo86]

I've almost gone here a few times but decided it would be too big a derail. But yes, this, and it's worse since the DCs you're facing keep increasing.

Me personally, I think that is just wrapped up in the "casters aren't gods" mentality. Yes, you target (if you can) weak save throws, but its been like that since the very beginning. All that has changed here is the actual numbers, and that its generally easier to resist even weak save throws, unlike 3.x where you had next to zero chance.

Any improvement here (and there is one) is still an improvement. Even a 20% chance is better than zero.

[Kurald Galain]

Me personally, I think that is just wrapped up in the "casters aren't gods" mentality. Yes, you target (if you can) weak save throws, but its been like that since the very beginning. All that has changed here is the actual numbers, and that its generally easier to resist even weak save throws, unlike 3.x where you had next to zero chance.

Actually, it's the exact opposite. Against level-appropriate opponents:

• In 3E, your chance to make a strong save starts around 50% and goes up so that at high level you'll only rarely fail them.
• In 3E, your chance to make a weak save starts around 40% and stays that way throughout your career.
• In 5E, your chance to make a strong save starts around 50% and stays that way throughout your career.
• In 5E, your chance to make a weak save starts around 35% and goes down so that at high level you'll almost always fail them.
• 2E doesn't have weak saving throws nor does it give casters the ability to target a particular saving throw.

So in 3E, your weak points stay at about 50/50 throughout your career and you actually become better at your strong points, whereas in 5E your strong points stay at about 50/50 throughout your career and you become much weaker at your weak points. And don't forget that most 3E classes have two strong saves out of three, whereas most 5E classes have two strong saves out of six.

[Fwiffo86]

Actually, it's the exact opposite. Against level-appropriate opponents:

• In 3E, your chance to make a strong save starts around 50% and goes up so that at high level you'll only rarely fail them.
• In 3E, your chance to make a weak save starts around 40% and stays that way throughout your career.
• In 5E, your chance to make a strong save starts around 50% and stays that way throughout your career.
• In 5E, your chance to make a weak save starts around 35% and goes down so that at high level you'll almost always fail them.
• 2E doesn't have weak saving throws nor does it give casters the ability to target a particular saving throw.

So in 3E, your weak points stay at about 50/50 throughout your career and you actually become better at your strong points, whereas in 5E your strong points stay at about 50/50 throughout your career and you become much weaker at your weak points. And don't forget that most 3E classes have two strong saves out of three, whereas most 5E classes have two strong saves out of six.

That is not the experience we are having in our game at this time (level 20 throne of bloodstone conversion). Weak saves are still being made with noticeable frequency. *shrugs* On paper vs. application issues I guess.

[Kurald Galain]

That is not the experience we are having in our game at this time (level 20 throne of bloodstone conversion). Weak saves are still being made with noticeable frequency. *shrugs* On paper vs. application issues I guess.

According to RAW, the save DC is 8 + casting stat + proficiency, or DC 19 at top levels; whereas your modifier for a weak save should be approximately +1. I suppose that 15% of the time is still a noticeable frequency?

[Solusek]

That is not the experience we are having in our game at this time (level 20 throne of bloodstone conversion). Weak saves are still being made with noticeable frequency. *shrugs* On paper vs. application issues I guess.

How do you make that DC 19 Dex save when you are a 20th level fighter with a Dex of 14?

Or that DC 19 Con save when you are a rogue with a 14 Con?

Looks to me like that's only a 20% success rate for high level characters.

Yes, there may be other class abilities floating around the party to improve that (bard stuff, or spell buffs), and there might also be some magic item giving you another +1 or +2. I think it still ends up being less often than 3rd edition, though.

[Fwiffo86]

According to RAW, the save DC is 8 + casting stat + proficiency, or DC 19 at top levels; whereas your modifier for a weak save should be approximately +1. I suppose that 15% of the time is still a noticeable frequency?

I suppose you could attribute it to the following reasons:

No feats are used, so average low ATT scores approach or exceed 14 due to ASIs.

While saves are failed on SoS spells, they tend to either be corrected immediately the next round (thus not really being a problem), or the caster's concentration is broken shortly after.

[Mr.Moron]

According to RAW, the save DC is 8 + casting stat + proficiency, or DC 19 at top levels; whereas your modifier for a weak save should be approximately +1. I suppose that 15% of the time is still a noticeable frequency?

A 15% chance is certainly something I'd call very noticeable. Hell, characters have noticeable critical hit rates at 1/3rd that frequency. Maybe It's just my time playing so many video games that show your Pass/Fail chances but an 85/15 always still feels very up in the air to me.

[Kurald Galain]

A 15% chance is certainly something I'd call very noticeable. Hell, characters have noticeable critical hit rates at 1/3rd that frequency. Maybe It's just my time playing so many video games that show your Pass/Fail chances but an 85/15 always still feels very up in the air to me.

That's a good point.

It doesn't change the fact though that in 3E a high-level character would have about 40% chance of making his weak saves, and that in 3E, most of your saves will be strong (for most classes) whereas in 5E most of your saves will be weak.

[Knaight]

Me personally, I think that is just wrapped up in the "casters aren't gods" mentality. Yes, you target (if you can) weak save throws, but its been like that since the very beginning. All that has changed here is the actual numbers, and that its generally easier to resist even weak save throws, unlike 3.x where you had next to zero chance.

As Kurald Galain covered, the odds aren't that good. Even with a 14 at mid levels for inferior stats, that's a +2 against a save DC that can easily be 17 (8 + 4 proficiency, +5 attribute). That needs a 15+, leading to a 30% success chance. It's better than 0, but it's not notably better than 3e. Personally I'm a proponent of doubling saves - as casters get to higher levels, they gain a bit of an edge against weaker stats, fall behind a bit on stronger stats, and need to compensate with better targeting (which the spells already give them).

[Mr.Moron]

That's a good point.

It doesn't change the fact though that in 3E a high-level character would have about 40% chance of making his weak saves, and that in 3E, most of your saves will be strong (for most classes) whereas in 5E most of your saves will be weak.

The variability in terms of save optimization vs DC optimization was so great I don't think you can make that statement. The floor was pretty low, say +5 for an abysmally equipped/built character with a sky-high limit. This wasn't as true of DCs that had somewhat higher floors, but similarly sky-high ceilings.

In 3.P the success/failure split might be anything, you might not even be dealing with effects that interacted with the Attack Roll or Saving Throw mechanics. Even with just core rules, having something a cohesive success/failure curve required all plays have the same level of charOP ability and investment.

[Fwiffo86]

As Kurald Galain covered, the odds aren't that good. Even with a 14 at mid levels for inferior stats, that's a +2 against a save DC that can easily be 17 (8 + 4 proficiency, +5 attribute). That needs a 15+, leading to a 30% success chance. It's better than 0, but it's not notably better than 3e. Personally I'm a proponent of doubling saves - as casters get to higher levels, they gain a bit of an edge against weaker stats, fall behind a bit on stronger stats, and need to compensate with better targeting (which the spells already give them).

Perspective differences I suppose are at work here. I easily notice a 30% success rate. In fact, I view that as huge. Especially given the system's narrowed field. I find it interesting that some people (like me) think a single +1 is a big deal in 5e, and yet others deride it as not being big enough. Again, I attribute this to perspective and opinion.

[wolfstone]

Okay, so each class has a set list of skills, but is there a way to gain proficiency in skills outside of your class, such as the paying of double points in the 3s for upticks in skills outside of your class(es), or feats like in 4e? (I haven't read that far thru the 5e PHB yet.)

[silveralen]

That's a problem, then, because your ability to become competent at a skill competes with your actual class.


Yes, yes, we are well aware that high-level rogues can be good at skills, the issue is that everybody else cannot, and that most campaigns do not start at or even reach those levels. Compare this to other systems, where any character can be good at any skill he chooses to train in, and either straight from the start or pretty early in his career.

So... the issue is that skill expertise is a class ability? This should not, in your opinion, be the focus of a class?

Or everyone else should be good enough with skills that any additional ability rogue has is irrelevant?

So in 3E, your weak points stay at about 50/50 throughout your career and you actually become better at your strong points, whereas in 5E your strong points stay at about 50/50 throughout your career and you become much weaker at your weak points. And don't forget that most 3E classes have two strong saves out of three, whereas most 5E classes have two strong saves out of six.

That's a bit of an over simplification. Most classes are not limited to just two good saving throws with nothing elsewhere. Monk and rogue gain prof in additional saving throws, fighter and rogue can boost weak saves directly with attribute increases (though additional prof with feats is a more efficient usage) , fighter and monk both gain rerolls on saving throws, barbarian has advantage on strength while raging and dexterity all the time, paladin gains a straight bonus which he shares. Those are just basic class features, combine with feats, racial features (go gnomes!), and spells.

At the bottom end are barbarian and ranger. Barbarian only gets advantage on dex saves and immunity to a couple things if frenzied berserker, while ranger can only grab evasion and steel will. That, plus classes who must boost via spell and have no protection built in, like cleric, wizard (non abjuration) or dragon sorcerer (wild sorcerer has a small bit built).

Everyone ahs weak points, but it is going to be far better than 3e for most classes.

Okay, so each class has a set list of skills, but is there a way to gain proficiency in skills outside of your class, such as the paying of double points in the 3s for upticks in skills outside of your class(es), or feats like in 4e? (I haven't read that far thru the 5e PHB yet.)

1. Backgrounds, which can be used to gain most skills, especially if your background has a skill which you already took as part of your class. You always get two skills from your background so chances are you can get the skills you want without much trouble.

2. If that isn't enough, races help as well. Some give you a free choice (variant human and half elf), others give you a specific skill. If you gain access to that skill again, it becomes a free choice as well.

3. A couple class features give additional prof, sometimes restricted sometimes free choice. Varies.

4. There is a feat you can take to grant prof in three skills, plus multiclassing, though these are rarely needed and tend to be a bit more costly.

[Kurald Galain]

That's a bit of an over simplification. Most classes are not limited to just two good saving throws with nothing elsewhere. Monk and rogue gain prof in additional saving throws, fighter and rogue can boost weak saves directly with attribute increases (though additional prof with feats is a more efficient usage) , fighter and monk both gain rerolls on saving throws, barbarian has advantage on strength while raging and dexterity all the time, paladin gains a straight bonus which he shares. Those are just basic class features, combine with feats, racial features (go gnomes!), and spells.

The problem is that most of that doesn't really help.

If the base chance for a weak saving throw is 15%, then with an attribute increase that becomes 20%, or instead with advantage or a reroll that makes it 27%. That's still clearly not better than 3E's baseline of 40% for weak saves. And, to repeat, most 3E classes have two strong saves which straightforwardly end up around 80% (which also doesn't count feats, racial features, or spells yet).

Yes, pally and monk have good saves. Guess what? They also had that in earlier editions.

[Knaight]

Perspective differences I suppose are at work here. I easily notice a 30% success rate. In fact, I view that as huge. Especially given the system's narrowed field. I find it interesting that some people (like me) think a single +1 is a big deal in 5e, and yet others deride it as not being big enough. Again, I attribute this to perspective and opinion.

It's not that 30% is negligible. It's that it's worse than it was at the beginning of the game against comparable foes. Plus, we can turn that around here. If a 30% success rate is huge, why don't the casters have that for some of their nastier spells? Even damage spells would often work out to a bunch of damage, plus a 30% chance of each target taking a bunch more, and at least some targets failing a roll gets pretty likely pretty quickly as the number targeted go up.

[Fwiffo86]

It's not that 30% is negligible. It's that it's worse than it was at the beginning of the game against comparable foes. Plus, we can turn that around here. If a 30% success rate is huge, why don't the casters have that for some of their nastier spells? Even damage spells would often work out to a bunch of damage, plus a 30% chance of each target taking a bunch more, and at least some targets failing a roll gets pretty likely pretty quickly as the number targeted go up.

I think that expresses the Magic user getting "better" with their spells. If the chance to resist on a weak save gets progressively worse, does it not also indicate that the magician's spells are getting stronger?

[Knaight]

I think that expresses the Magic user getting "better" with their spells. If the chance to resist on a weak save gets progressively worse, does it not also indicate that the magician's spells are getting stronger?

That already is expressed when they're targeting lower level creatures. You'll notice that as hit chance goes up, so does monster AC. There's no similar expression involving getting better at striking. There's still an increase against lower level threats. I have absolutely no issue with the spells of a 20th level wizard being consistently harder to save against than those of a 1st level wizard. What I do have an issue with is when it's harder for a 20th level warrior to save against a 20th level wizard than it is for a 1st level warrior to save against a 1st level wizard with just about every save. Not only has it become easier to target weak saves, all of them are comparatively weaker. That's just nonsense.

[Fwiffo86]

What I do have an issue with is when it's harder for a 20th level warrior to save against a 20th level wizard than it is for a 1st level warrior to save against a 1st level wizard with just about every save. Not only has it become easier to target weak saves, all of them are comparatively weaker. That's just nonsense.

Why is this an issue? The wizard is getting better at what he does, his spell DCs increase, meaning more potent magic, thus more reliable spell effects. I would think that what you want as a wizard is more reliability to represent that your spells are getting stronger. It "should" be harder for a 20th level fighter to shrug off the effects of a 20th level wizard.

The wizard at level 20 certainly isn't going to out-fight the fighter in a reverse scenario correct?

EDIT--

To use the skills debate as a reference, you want the skills to improve to superhuman levels represented, shouldn't the potentcy of magic weilded by a Magic class also likewise be increased?