Unsatisfied with the D&D 5e skill system

doctorbadwolf · Mar 28, 2019

Blue said:
13th Age is a d20 that came out a bit before 5e from lead designers of 3ed and 4e. It's skill system is very simple and very comprehensive.

Everyone gets 8 background points to split between a few backgrounds, none above +5. Backgrounds are encouraged to be descriptive. You aren't "Sailor +4", you're "First Mate on the pirate schooner Roll-yer-bones +4" or "Enlisted crew on HDM (His Draconic Magesty's) _Wavehammer_ +4". Or "Quartermaster on a succession of cargoships for the Concord Trading Company +4".

Then, it's all a does this fit? There's a great story I heard secondhand about a party trying to console a widow who's son had been killed. One of the characters was a "Captain from the Iron Wall" (sees giant monster attacks often) or something like that who said "Do you know how many letters I had to write to grieving families that their sons and daughters wouldn't be coming home? I know the words and the motions to settle the widow down." So the background was allowed.

YES, at a table where players are trying to game the system and a DM who won't talk to players if things are out-of-hand it cane lead to players trying to have their best background apply to everything. If you have players where a little honest communication wouldn't clear that up, then go for something more formalized.

But otherwise it's remarkable comprehensive while being ridiculously simple. With the added bonus of constantly fleshing out characters AND providing the DM hooks into your backstory. Just made of win.

This, absolutely.

I will straight up just ask for an ability check with proficiency if a background/backstory element applies to the task at hand. Obv I’d they have a relevant skill or tool prof, that works too, but I’m fine with rewarding players who call back to their background.

TaranTheWanderer · Mar 28, 2019

Oofta said:
Yeah, I disagree with Iserith on this one. Sometimes letting the players roll is appropriate even if there is no chance of success or failure. A good example is the case of the players that suspect an NPC is lying when they're really telling the truth. If you don't call for (or allow) an insight check then they know the NPC isn't being deceptive. Makes solving who-done-its really easy I guess. Just walk around to all the suspects and ask if they did it. The first time the DM asks for an insight check you have your culprit.

I don't want to start another long argument about that, just saying that I think he puts too much credence in a one liner buried at the end of a paragraph that's just seems to be intended as general guidance.

Well, for your example, the result of a failed roll is the pc doesn’t know for sure. Let the paranoia tear your players apart. That’s a meaningful consequence.

I semi agree with isereth. If a difficult lock needs picking and there are no time constraints, why bother rolling? There’s no meaningful consequence. I wouldn’t have them roll over and over until they succeeded. OTOH, If they have 3 rounds to succeed before the ogre guard comes back, failure will have a consequence.

As I mentioned earlier, sometimes a pc skill is so high that you know they auto succeed it’s not worth rolling but they want to roll anyways. I’m cool with letting players show off their character’s abilities.

Before I call for a roll, I always think, “what will I say if they fail?”

If the answer is boring and doesn’t add anything to the plot then I find it better to just to tell them they succeed. If it forces them in to a different approach, then that’s a meaningful consequence. Can’t unlock the door? Now you have to bash it and make noise.

FATE rpg encourages this approach. 3.5 didn’t encourage or discourage any particular approach.

I just don’t want to bore my players with pointless rolls.

iserith · Mar 28, 2019

TaranTheWanderer said:
Well, for your example, the result of a failed roll is the pc doesn’t know for sure. Let the paranoia tear your players apart. That’s a meaningful consequence.

Sure. In addition, the rules have two tools that the DM can employ:

Progress combined with a setback (PHB p. 174)
Passive checks (PHB p. 175)

So if the DM fears that some aspect of the adjudication is going to give away information that the DM does not want to give away, then use a passive check ("...used when the DM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice...").

Or, upon failing an ability check, the DM can use progress combined with a setback. For example, "The subject is displaying body language indicative of untruthfulness, but she also signals that she knows that you saw her and adjusts her behavior." Now perhaps future attempts to discern truthfulness fails outright. Or the NPC is in a position of power and is insulted, leading to further complication. This can go a lot of different ways other than "You dunno."

It's a pretty weird position that some people take where they say they don't agree with rules I've quoted because they can't figure out how to use the said rules to solve a problem of their own making.

S'mon · Mar 28, 2019

Oofta said:
Sometimes letting the players roll is appropriate even if there is no chance of success or failure.

I agree - one I recall was a magically warded door with an exceptionally high break DC - so high a PC rolled a natural 20 on an Athletics check and still failed to open it. If I had said "Don't roll" then they wouldn't have attempted to open the door or wouldn't have received the information that the door was incredibly hard to break.

Often though I like to tell players the target DC so they they can tell me "I auto pass" or "I can't make that".

In any case, different approaches suit different situations, different GM styles, and even different genres. And the 5e guidance is very supportive of a variety of approaches - it seeks to empower the DM, not constrain him or her.

Swarmkeeper · Mar 28, 2019

Oofta said:
Yeah, I disagree with Iserith on this one. Sometimes letting the players roll is appropriate even if there is no chance of success or failure. A good example is the case of the players that suspect an NPC is lying when they're really telling the truth. If you don't call for (or allow) an insight check then they know the NPC isn't being deceptive. Makes solving who-done-its really easy I guess. Just walk around to all the suspects and ask if they did it. The first time the DM asks for an insight check you have your culprit.

I don't want to start another long argument about that, just saying that I think he puts too much credence in a one liner buried at the end of a paragraph that just seems to be intended as general guidance.

Except in your "who-dun-its" scenarios outlined above, the DM would simply decide there is a chance of failure and there are meaningful consequences of failure, so rolls would be called for when interrogating key NPCs. You seem to be intent on trying to prove that "@iserith's way" is so rigid when it is anything but. Keep setting 'em up, I guess, and we'll keep knocking 'em down.

iserith · Mar 28, 2019

S'mon said:
I agree - one I recall was a magically warded door with an exceptionally high break DC - so high a PC rolled a natural 20 on an Athletics check and still failed to open it. If I had said "Don't roll" then they wouldn't have attempted to open the door or wouldn't have received the information that the door was incredibly hard to break.

You can just describe the door as being special in a way that establishes it will not be broken down with brute force.

Alternatively (or perhaps in addition), you can just rule automatic failure to a brute force attempt to open the door without a roll. The character describes the character trying to break down the door and the DM narrates the result of the adventurer's action as failing to do so. Unless there is some additional meaningful consequence for failure (perhaps it sets off an alarm or otherwise makes noise that alerts a wandering monster), that ability check was unnecessary in my view.

Ovinomancer · Mar 28, 2019

S'mon said:
I agree - one I recall was a magically warded door with an exceptionally high break DC - so high a PC rolled a natural 20 on an Athletics check and still failed to open it. If I had said "Don't roll" then they wouldn't have attempted to open the door or wouldn't have received the information that the door was incredibly hard to break.

Often though I like to tell players the target DC so they they can tell me "I auto pass" or "I can't make that".

In any case, different approaches suit different situations, different GM styles, and even different genres. And the 5e guidance is very supportive of a variety of approaches - it seeks to empower the DM, not constrain him or her.

What an odd assertion about a style you don't use! Nothing anyone has said should have indicated that not rolling means it doesn't happen. The PC could have made exactly the same roll in my game, and I wouldn't have called for a roll, I'd have narrated the failure with something along the lines of "you smash into the door a few times, but it doesn't even budge a bit." This both provides the players with the information and moves the game forward exactly the same way, just without rolling dice at all.

Again, if your example of someone else's style seems really, really bad, stop and consider that maybe you have it wrong. Frex, if you assume not rolling means ignoring the stated action, you're off base. The loop is 1. players declare actions, 2. DM determines success, failure, or uncertain; if uncertain roll dice 3. narrate outcome of action. If you look closely, there isn't a 2a, if you don't roll dice, nothing at all happens and skip step 3. Players always do what they declare though it might or might not succeed, but they always get a resolution.

S'mon · Mar 28, 2019

Ovinomancer said:
What an odd assertion about a style you don't use! Nothing anyone has said should have indicated that not rolling means it doesn't happen. The PC could have made exactly the same roll in my game, and I wouldn't have called for a roll, I'd have narrated the failure with something along the lines of "you smash into the door a few times, but it doesn't even budge a bit."

I didn't make any assertion about other people's styles, and I use a variety myself, depending on various factors, like I just said.

With the door, it was not literally unbreakable, a sufficiently high number could have broken it. For me to say "Don't roll" I would have had to first establish what the PC's maximum bonus was. Rather than have that discussion followed by you-bounce-off, for me it worked better to have player roll. It actually made for a dramatic little vignette - "No normal door could have withstood that!" Conversely with the high level Barbarians IMC I know what their minimum Athletics checks are (= STR, currently 24 & 30!) - so I will say "That was a DC 25 so you auto-succeed..." and that works well there, too.

IMO the important thing with the 5e system is to be flexible, not doctrinaire, and use the best tools for the job.

S'mon · Mar 28, 2019

iserith said:
You can just describe the door as being special in a way that establishes it will not be broken down with brute force.

Alternatively (or perhaps in addition), you can just rule automatic failure to a brute force attempt to open the door without a roll. The character describes the character trying to break down the door and the DM narrates the result of the adventurer's action as failing to do so. Unless there is some additional meaningful consequence for failure (perhaps it sets off an alarm or otherwise makes noise that alerts a wandering monster), that ability check was unnecessary in my view.

The door appeared normal, but was magically warded. As it happened there was no possibility of the particular PC breaking it successfully (I think the DC was 2 higher than their roll), but the attempt did give them information.

I'll also let PCs roll Perception and Investigate when there is nothing to be found - we do all rolls in the open, the roll itself provides information although there is no success/failure threshold.

Oofta · Mar 28, 2019

DM Dave1 said:
Except in your "who-dun-its" scenarios outlined above, the DM would simply decide there is a chance of failure and there are meaningful consequences of failure, so rolls would be called for when interrogating key NPCs. You seem to be intent on trying to prove that "@iserith's way" is so rigid when it is anything but. Keep setting 'em up, I guess, and we'll keep knocking 'em done.

Oh noes, I am cut to the quick by that rapier wit. And a picture! You pulled all the stops out on that one.

All I'm pointing out is that in some cases I allow PCs to roll even though I know the outcome because I don't want to give anything away to the players. In other cases, it's just a preference. Just like yours.

Unsatisfied with the D&D 5e skill system

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle

TaranTheWanderer

Legend

iserith

Magic Wordsmith

S'mon

Legend

Swarmkeeper

Hero

iserith

Magic Wordsmith

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!

S'mon

Legend

S'mon

Legend

Oofta

Legend

Similar Threads