D&D (2024) Playtest 8: Cantrips

[James Gasik]

Friends can give you a bonus to your next Charisma check equal to your Spellcasting modifier. No penalties.

If you want a cantrip that is a Minor Suggestion that can cause someone to think ill of you afterwards, that is essentially a mind trick. Call it Tasha's Mind Trick or Minor/Lesser Suggestion. Don't call it "Friends."

This is what I feel the intent of Friends should be, in that it's obviously intended to be used and not be a trap option. However, adding your spellcasting modifier to a check is almost as bad as Expertise, totally breaking bounded accuracy. I'm just imagining a 20 Charisma Bard with Expertise in Persuasion and then adding another 5 to his check...

 

[mellored]

This is what I feel the intent of Friends should be, in that it's obviously intended to be used and not be a trap option. However, adding your spellcasting modifier to a check is almost as bad as Expertise, totally breaking bounded accuracy. I'm just imagining a 20 Charisma Bard with Expertise in Persuasion and then adding another 5 to his check...

Spell casting modifier instead of Charisma?

So your 20 Int, 8 Cha wizard would get a +6.

 

[Yaarel]

Friends can give you a bonus to your next Charisma check equal to your Spellcasting modifier. No penalties.

If you want a cantrip that is a Minor Suggestion that can cause someone to think ill of you afterwards, that is essentially a mind trick. Call it Tasha's Mind Trick or Minor/Lesser Suggestion. Don't call it "Friends."

Friends neednt be too intrusive.

Call it Icebreaker, for a chance to get to know someone.

It can be more about a sense of saying and doing stuff that appeals to the other person.

 

[Dausuul]

This is what I feel the intent of Friends should be, in that it's obviously intended to be used and not be a trap option. However, adding your spellcasting modifier to a check is almost as bad as Expertise, totally breaking bounded accuracy. I'm just imagining a 20 Charisma Bard with Expertise in Persuasion and then adding another 5 to his check...

This is a huge pet peeve of mine. Bounded accuracy was designed for combat, not skills. Expertise exists because bounded accuracy, using the same scale as combat, would ruin the skill system.

In combat, power scales along multiple axes: Attack bonus, AC, hit points, number of attacks, damage per attack. Because of this, you can put tight constraints on attack bonus and AC -- you could eliminate them altogether if you really wanted to -- and still have a wide range of combat power. A level 20 fighter is more formidable than half a dozen level 1 fighters, even if you boost the level 1 fighters' attack bonus and AC to match the level 20.

But with a skill check, you have your bonus and the DC and that's it, full stop. Using only proficiency + stat, the highest possible skill bonus is so low that even a highly skilled character will frequently fail at basic tasks. There has to be some other factor to make up the difference. Expertise is a hack fix, but it's a whole lot better than no fix at all.

 

[James Gasik]

Spell casting modifier instead of Charisma?

So your 20 Int, 8 Cha wizard would get a +6.

That seems more fair. Then again, I'm reminded of Wizards taking a Utility Power in 4e that let them make Diplomacy checks with Arcana which led to a lot of people saying Arcana was the best skill in the game...

 

[James Gasik]

This is a huge pet peeve of mine. Bounded accuracy was designed for combat, not skills. Expertise exists because bounded accuracy, using the same scale as combat, would ruin the skill system.

In combat, power scales along multiple axes: Attack bonus, AC, hit points, number of attacks, damage per attack. Because of this, you can put tight constraints on attack bonus and AC -- you could eliminate them altogether if you really wanted to -- and still have a wide range of combat power. A level 20 fighter is more formidable than half a dozen level 1 fighters, even if you boost the level 1 fighters' attack bonus and AC to match the level 20.

But with a skill check, you have your bonus and the DC and that's it, full stop. Using only proficiency + stat, the highest possible skill bonus is so low that even a highly skilled character will frequently fail at basic tasks. There has to be some other factor to make up the difference. Expertise is a hack fix, but it's a whole lot better than no fix at all.

If bounded accuracy wasn't designed for skills, then why are ability checks bounded to the same proficiency bonus as attack skills?

You could have just said "proficiency grants x2 proficiency bonus to ability checks" if bounded accuracy wasn't intended. I see Expertise as somewhat balance breaking because it leads to the following scenarios:

Either A, the Expertise user just automatically makes most required checks while other characters struggle, or
B, checks that can theoretically challenge the Expertise user come up that are impossible for someone to make without Expertise.

Neither feels particularly good. There shouldn't be a "I'm skilled just way better" in a system where everyone is meant to make ability checks regularly. WotC attempted to move flat, numerical bonuses out of the system (which is why you get +1d4 with Guidance). Expertise could have been a Rogue class feature that gives them a skill die, or it could have just given them advantage. You'd have a similar effect on things, but you wouldn't raise the floor on checks.

The fact that Rogues also have an ability to raise the floor on checks on top of this is somewhat ridiculous.

 

[mellored]

That seems more fair. Then again, I'm reminded of Wizards taking a Utility Power in 4e that let them make Diplomacy checks with Arcana which led to a lot of people saying Arcana was the best skill in the game...

4e could do a lot more than just Diplomacy with Acana. Athletics, endurance, perception, initiative, and more I forget. And you could stack it higher than any other skill.

But I'm just suggesting stat replacement. Not proficiency. And honestly, Int could use a bit more love.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Why have that extra text though. The DM can already determine the person's reaction based on many different things - not just how it was treated while charmed.

The only really good reason I can see for adding that text, is because they don't want people assuming it is unchanged from before. Before, it immediately made people hostile. By adding the text, you make it clear that that is no longer the default.

I don't think that is necessary, but we have a lot of people who don't read the rules very closely, so it could happen.

 

[Chaosmancer]

This is what I feel the intent of Friends should be, in that it's obviously intended to be used and not be a trap option. However, adding your spellcasting modifier to a check is almost as bad as Expertise, totally breaking bounded accuracy. I'm just imagining a 20 Charisma Bard with Expertise in Persuasion and then adding another 5 to his check...

Yeah, I'm fine with the advantage from Charm. It is no worse than getting the Help action, just without Friends. Which you can use the Cantrip to get!

 

[Chaosmancer]

If bounded accuracy wasn't designed for skills, then why are ability checks bounded to the same proficiency bonus as attack skills?

You could have just said "proficiency grants x2 proficiency bonus to ability checks" if bounded accuracy wasn't intended. I see Expertise as somewhat balance breaking because it leads to the following scenarios:

Either A, the Expertise user just automatically makes most required checks while other characters struggle, or
B, checks that can theoretically challenge the Expertise user come up that are impossible for someone to make without Expertise.

Neither feels particularly good. There shouldn't be a "I'm skilled just way better" in a system where everyone is meant to make ability checks regularly. WotC attempted to move flat, numerical bonuses out of the system (which is why you get +1d4 with Guidance). Expertise could have been a Rogue class feature that gives them a skill die, or it could have just given them advantage. You'd have a similar effect on things, but you wouldn't raise the floor on checks.

The fact that Rogues also have an ability to raise the floor on checks on top of this is somewhat ridiculous.

Eh, yes and no.

I've been pointing out in another thread that the chances of success for various rolls are... pretty low. If you have a DC 20, and JUST proficiency, then even by level 7 you are looking at a mere +7. That is a 40% chance of success. Expertise raises that to 55%. Which is still not game breaking.

Where Expertise becomes a "problem" is late game, and even then it is only truly a problem when you add things like Reliable Talent. But then again, on the other hand, I do acknowledge there is a level of fantasy where tasks that are normally hard are trivial for the character in question, and they can attempt things generally considered utterly impossible by mere mortals.

I think we are close to a good balance, but the skill system really does need a few extra bits and bobs to really make it shine. I've recently once more been tempted by skill powers, and I could see ways to slot those in as partial solutions.