D&D 5E 5e's stumbles

[S'mon]

That's not to criticize my current group, but to point out that those of us who post on internet D&D forums are probably the "1%" of game rules competence. D&D has a lot more casual appeal now than it has probably at any other point in history, and I suspect the caster complexity issue is a much larger deterrent than might be obvious at first blush.

Personally I like to save my "competence" hat for GMing. As a player I like to kick back and relax, whether my PC is fairly minmaxed (Polearm Master GW Master Barbarian) or not (upcoming GW Master greatsword Battlemaster Fighter). I hated playing a Paladin and feeling I was supposed to *work* at it with those damn spell lists!

 

[Jabborwacky]

The acrobatics skill as it is right now probably qualifies. Flips are essentially a form of jumping, but jumping is supposed to be handled by athletics. So the rules are kind of saying "yeah, you can jump with acrobatics, but officially you can only jump with athletics." The combat rules make tumbling and flipping, the stuff that gives the skill its name, mechanically ineffectual outside of escaping a grapple.

On the other side of things, here is a question I ended up asking on tumbler. I haven't received an answer to it yet:

I'm running into a mechanical conundrum involving a hypothetical use of the acrobatics skill. On a naturally occurring ice sheet, a use of the acrobatics skill can keep you stable. Then there is the grease spell. A raw reading states that I'd need to make a reflex save regardless of actively trying to slide on the slippery surface using acrobatics. Yet if the entire point of using the skill was to stabilize myself, why would I need to make a reflex saving throw at the end of the turn to avoid slipping and falling?

If grease mechanics are extended to all other slippery surfaces, at best the acrobatics skill would allow me to move a certain number of squares before having to make a reflex save. That's kind of like asking a person climbing with the athletics skill to make a strength save at the end of each turn to see if he can hold on. As far as I know, that isn't the case unless there is an earthquake or something. I also considered whether it was simply because it was more slippery, but I'm sure that would just bump up the DC of the check. It's kind of a strange situation, to be honest.

Has anyone been able to find an official answer to this one? I've been looking through the sage advice columns, but I'm not having any luck.

 

[Valetudo]

Casters might get a low amount of spells compared to 3rd edition, but by higher levels they still have more than enough. I think a caster really only needs to cast a couple well placed spells per an encounter along with cantrips and your spells go along way. If anyone, i think healers have to manage their spells more than other casters wich is why there is so many healing options for most classes this edition.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The acrobatics skill as it is right now probably qualifies. Flips are essentially a form of jumping, but jumping is supposed to be handled by athletics. So the rules are kind of saying "yeah, you can jump with acrobatics, but officially you can only jump with athletics." The combat rules make tumbling and flipping, the stuff that gives the skill its name, mechanically ineffectual outside of escaping a grapple.

I guess the idea is that jumping for /distance/ or height is athletics, the speed/power of high STR help with that. Acrobatics, you might be able to jump high/far with the help of a springboard or a strong partner in a performance, but it's primarily about agility rather than power. Of course, players can try to get around such things. You may not be able to long-jump with Acrobatics, but you might be able to swing or do something improbable like wall-running in a video game or whatever you can sell to the DM.

I'm running into a mechanical conundrum involving a hypothetical use of the acrobatics skill. On a naturally occurring ice sheet, a use of the acrobatics skill can keep you stable. Then there is the grease spell. A raw reading states that I'd need to make a reflex save regardless of actively trying to slide on the slippery surface using acrobatics. Yet if the entire point of using the skill was to stabilize myself, why would I need to make a reflex saving throw at the end of the turn to avoid slipping and falling?

Standard answer is just "because: magic." Magical grease is just slipperier than slippery. Zero friction? It has negative friction. It conjures invisible grease grimlins who push your feet out from under you. &c.

(A more mechanical answer might be "the specific rules of the spell supersede the general rules of the skill.")

But, if you're the DM, call for the roll that makes sense to you. Letting a rogue roll DEX + prof because he's proficient in Acrobatics instead of DEX + prof because he's proficient in DEX saves isn't exactly going to break the game - even if his Expertise applies, or it's another character who happens to be proficient in acrobatics but not DEX saves, it wouldn't be the end of the world.

You can also consider the way actions are declared. If the character tries to cross the grease spell normally, he makes the save. If the character's been established as being from a region where there's ice skating, and has acrobatics, OTOH, and describes attempting to slide across the grease as if skating on ice....

 

[Jabborwacky]

I guess the idea is that jumping for /distance/ or height is athletics, the speed/power of high STR help with that. Acrobatics, you might be able to jump high/far with the help of a springboard or a strong partner in a performance, but it's primarily about agility rather than power. Of course, players can try to get around such things. You may not be able to long-jump with Acrobatics, but you might be able to swing or do something improbable like wall-running in a video game or whatever you can sell to the DM.


Standard answer is just "because: magic." Magical grease is just slipperier than slippery. Zero friction? It has negative friction. It conjures invisible grease grimlins who push your feet out from under you. &c.

(A more mechanical answer might be "the specific rules of the spell supersede the general rules of the skill.")


But, if you're the DM, call for the roll that makes sense to you. Letting a rogue roll DEX + prof because he's proficient in Acrobatics instead of DEX + prof because he's proficient in DEX saves isn't exactly going to break the game - even if his Expertise applies, or it's another character who happens to be proficient in acrobatics but not DEX saves, it wouldn't be the end of the world.


You can also consider the way actions are declared. If the character tries to cross the grease spell normally, he makes the save. If the character's been established as being from a region where there's ice skating, and has acrobatics, OTOH, and describes attempting to slide across the grease as if skating on ice....

Those are some good ideas. It may be that it takes creativity on both the DM and player's part to really bring out the use of the acrobatics skill. Actually, that may be the real culprit here: Most encounters are in places where the acrobatics skill is generally not that useful. Even when there may be an opportunity to use it, we may miss out on those opportunities because of how looking at a 2d map effects our thinking.

------------- Funnies time ------------

No, what we need is a dose of creativity. Something that will open people's eyes to the glory that is the acrobatics skill. Let us consider the wisdom of our elders.



We have to consider the facts here: According to our honorable elders (who cannot lie) not only can acrobatics turn halflings into sentient, short ranged ammunition, but their foes are struck dumb by the halfling's look of sheer determination. But we shall not be outdone by the generations that came before us! There simply must be a way to make our projectile weapons more effective. If only halflings could be made ever so slightly more terrifying. Worry not! For 5e has already provided us an answer!

Because at the end of the day, the only thing more scary than gazing into the eyes of a flaming skull flying your way would be gazing into the eyes of an airborne one of these...



Even a dragon's bowls could not withstand the primordial terror at hearing the shrill cry of these small, deformed projectiles as they close in for the kill. Their bravery and determination only matched by the oscillation of their jolly little bellies and giant mouths. Just look at that smug grin on her face as she uses her tiny hands to strum her lute, positively reveling in her own dastardly design! How can the poor flaming skull ever compete against something like that? It just can't, I tell you!

------- end randomness -------

You know, since you mentioned a background involving ice skating, I was thinking about mentioning something about Lake Zarovich and the possibility of Strahd offering permits at an exhorbitant fee, but then I saw that completely random 3rd edition art and nearly lost my popcorn. if 3rd edition can be said to be anything, its certainly randomness done right.

Did I mention that 5e's halfling art can be at times downright terrifying? It's almost like their hands and feet are the inverse of what they should be. Not that it ever stopped me from playing a halfling, mind you. There is certainly room for improvement in their depiction of halflings.

Edit: Blah, now I feel terrible for riffing on the art, because its incredibly well done! Is it beautiful? Absolutely! But personally, I'd never envision any halfling adventurer of mine looking anything like that. It doesn't really project the essence of adventure, although its certainly a show of artistic talent.

 

[Bacon Bits]

Oh, Halfling art. Definitely add Halfling art to the list of 5e stumbles.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Those are some good ideas. It may be that it takes creativity on both the DM and player's part to really bring out the use of the acrobatics skill.

Almost any skill, really, and the specifics depend very much on the style of the DM and the player-DM relationship & communication. Every DM, no matter how experienced and cynical (and I say this as a very experienced, deeply cynical old DM) has some buttons that you can just push that will get you a better result. It may be /how/ you describe your character's action more than the action itself, for instance. It could be a type or theme of character or a genre or 'idiom' or allusion that shifts that DMing frame of mind into 'the player should succeed' (or at least get a shot).

For instance, you were wanting to move an enemy using acrobatics rather than the shove mechanic. You can't do that by saying "I want to use acrobatics to shove" because shove already uses STR. But, you could get there by describing something other than shoving - tripping, spinning, dodging, circling, etc - the details are a matter of finding a visualization that works for you and speaks to your DM. You were getting into it examples in some of your posts.

Actually, that may be the real culprit here: Most encounters are in places where the acrobatics skill is generally not that useful. Even when there may be an opportunity to use it, we may miss out on those opportunities because of how looking at a 2d map effects our thinking.

Seems to me there's all kinds of opportunities for acrobatics in a typical dungeon setting - you have walls to work with, if nothing else, and usually lots else.

You know, since you mentioned a background involving ice skating, I was thinking about mentioning something about Lake Zarovich and the possibility of Strahd offering permits at an exhorbitant fee

Heh.

But, you never know when some well-developed backstory/background detail (as opposed to just picking a background) might help you set up something.

 

[CapnZapp]

As a looming stumbling block, I would say not giving us a MM2 fairly soon.

At game launch, the selection of monsters (and NPC's!) was fine, and definitely not an issue.

But after a certain point, the... mechanical diversity of NPCs in particular is starting to get very old, very fast.

It simply isn't very interesting (from a D&D as a game perspective) to meet and battle the same Thugs and Spies over and over again.

It is high time for a new helping of generic NPCs!

That play differently than the ones we've already got. (It's best to be clear my concern isn't a role-playing one. I'm talking about NPCs as pieces on a board. It's boring if every NPC around CR 5 is always taken from the same (very limited) pool of possible statblocks.

I'm mostly concerned about the single-digit CR range above CR 1 or so.

At Challenge Ratings 2 or lower people haven't had the chance to develop any "signature" abilities, so there it's okay if most NPCs simply charge you and try to whack you with a club, or something. The expectation of diversity isn't there.

But having all elite guards be Veterans is simply lazy.

We need a selection of generic NPCs in the CR 3 to CR 9 range that offers a noticeably different experience for the players. Let's call that "combat texture".

Again, this isn't about realism or verisimilitude. To put it bluntly: this is about there being an arsenal of stat blocks that the DM can choose from that really makes a difference in how a fight plays out.

For instance, two varieties of the basic Veteran: one with halberds that let the players experience what it feels like fighting against foes with reach. This stat block should then have a special attack or two that really uses the mechanical possibilities offered by the reach. Another that gives us Veterans that are, say bladesingers, or swashbucklers.

4th edition was really great in this area. There were loads and loads of variety in stat blocks.

So let's hope a MM2 is scheduled for the fall, or I will be forced to add this to the list of stumbles...

 

[Lackhand]

As a looming stumbling block, I would say not giving us a MM2 fairly soon.

At game launch, the selection of monsters (and NPC's!) was fine, and definitely not an issue.

But after a certain point, the... mechanical diversity of NPCs in particular is starting to get very old, very fast.
...

I'm shilling, but I'm not the author (or affiliated thereof) so I hope that's okay
Have you looked at http://www.dmsguild.com/product/175883/DD-5e-NPC-Foe-Expansion?term=foe ? I've found it short, sweet, and invaluable.

It gives us 15 NPCs in your range that feel like a very natural extension of the MM's NPCs. It's so useful for me that I printed it out and wedged it in the back of my MM.

Nothing specific to this expansion, but I personally want more casters that are easy to run, though -- NPCs that cast as warlocks in particular would be much easier than the existing spell salad (a block that said "these four combat relevant spells with brief descriptions; 50% of any given utility spell of a lower level." would be great!)

 

[CapnZapp]

This is exactly what I'm talking about, so, thanks.

(The existence of these products does not absolve WotC from producing official supplements, however. Even if for only the single reason that official modules do not reference third-party content)

---

Spell salad is bad, yes. It's not that I don't understand why they pre-select an Archmage's spell repertoire, but a "Tactics" section should be mandatory for any creature with more than one basic approach to combat.

(So a demon or whatever with a couple of once a day abilities plus decent melee gets a pass. A druid with ten different spells plus wildshape does not.)