D&D 5E What needs to be fixed in 5E?

[KarinsDad]

In fact instead of creating artificial silos that force people to make their characters in certain ways I would remove the division of powers into attack and utility and make EVERY power dual-use, having both a combat function and a utility function.

Although I agree that siloing has issues and isn't a real good answer, I think this answer is worse because of what it will lead to. Having combined attack/utility powers might be fine for spell casters of various types, but in the Martial power source, it'll mean skill powers. I think the ability to add +5 to xxx skill with a power is a terrible game mechanic.

Unlike combat where a power can add to damage or add an effect, there are few things that can be done to a skill other than "adding a bonus" or "instead of a major fail on missing by 5 or less, a major fail occurs on missing by 10 or less". I consider both of these to be totally artificial. I just dislike the entire concept of:

DM: "The DC is 22"
Player: "No problem. I have that skill maxed out with ability score, level, background, and item (and possibly even Skill Focus). I throw my +5 utility power on it and a 22 is automatic."

It's bad enough that WotC came out with the concept of background bonuses to skills. The point is, once the skill system is balanced, it's a mistake to come up with a bunch of different ways that a player can boost it even more.

Take Perception. I have yet to see a group that doesn't have at least one Perception monkey (or near Perception monkey) in it. This means that Passive Perception is a joke because any DC high enough for the Perception monkey to not notice is so high that the untrained other PCs really don't even have a chance.

I'd totally prefer a system of +3 for a trained skill instead of +5 and a system where ability scores don't increase by that much. That way:

Perception Monkey: +8
Trained Perception: +4 to +6
Untrained Perception: +0 to +3

But in 4E, the Perception Monkey is walking around with +15 or some such nonsense even before taking into account utilty powers. If the game system added a boatload of attack/utility powers, the Perception Monkey is even more of a joke.

IMO, the skill system is the most unbalanced part of 4E and needs a major overhaul, and adding more utility powers, especially if they add bonuses to skills, will make it worse.

 

[Fanaelialae]

The way to avoid min/maxing is for the DM to create a variety of situations. People who spend all their time and energy maxing their combat capability stumble around outside of a fight being a drag. Pretty soon the player spends a feat or two or picks a utility power, etc that lets them do something outside of combat, problem solved.

Instead of making silos the answer is dual-use. There should be very few things that have no use only in or out of combat. 4e actually did a reasonable job of that with skills, most of them have explicit combat uses (some are pretty marginal or a bit dubious, but in general skills are dual-use). So the answer is to make more powers dual-use as well.

In fact instead of creating artificial silos that force people to make their characters in certain ways I would remove the division of powers into attack and utility and make EVERY power dual-use, having both a combat function and a utility function. I guess there could be a FEW powers that only do one or the other, or are mainly one or the other, but even those should have a non-combat function spelled out, even if it is rather limited.

All silos do is forbid perfectly good character concepts, or force people to do lame things like ignore half their class features in order to have a certain concept. I know you'll reply that "character who isn't much good in combat" is "not doing it right" and I agree that it isn't a type of character that has to be predominant, but there are plenty of situations where you might want to make a character that for instance starts out innocent and learns to fight, etc.

It's certainly an interesting approach, though I'm not certain yet whether I like it or not; I do think it could be feasible without creating inflated skill bonuses. That should definitely have to be part of the design guidelines.

Martial skill powers could give all kinds of non-numeric bonuses. For example, Cleave might allow a fighter to reduce an object's DR by 5, making it easier to cleave through a door. Someone with a Leaping Strike power might be able to automatically leap 1 extra square. Stand the Fallen could grant an ally a reroll on a skill check if the fighter succeeds on the same type of skill check.

The Monk is a decent existing example of how this could work. Every monk power is essentially an attack power combined with a utility power (albeit, usually combat oriented and involving tactical movement). Obviously, more variety would be necessary but I believe the monk demonstrates that this is viable.

My biggest concern about this approach is that I think it could very easily feel artificial if the design isn't good. Unlike some things, I don't think mediocre design would cut it here. The bar would have to be set fairly high. If my Pyromancer has burning hands, angor's scorcher, and fireball, will the designers be able to come up with a varied and interesting utilities based on each? Fire finger cantrip three times per encounter isn't going to cut it.

My other concern is that it might significantly limit player options. If my fighter concept is a berserker who fearlessly leaps across the battlefield and carves through doors like they're made of cardboard, why am I forced to choose between Cleave and Leaping Strike? My concept calls for the attack from Leaping Strike and the utility of Cleave; it seems arbitrary for the designers to tell me otherwise, particularly if my combination is as balanced as their combination.

A different approach might be taking the best of both worlds. Explain how attack powers may be used for utility, but retain utility powers as separate from attacks. Then my swordmage can use his Teleporting Blade power to sever a rope halfway across the room, because the target is listed as creature OR object. My fighter, on the other hand, could have both his leaping attack and door smashing utility. If the utility of Magic Missile is a sacred cow, the target description would state "Creature only". Attack powers remain attack powers, and utilities remain utilities, but attacks gain a lesser degree of utility as well (just as many utility powers will see use in combat).

Alternately, more explanation in the DMG as to how attack powers are intended to be used outside of combat could work. The bag of rats rule is a good one, but there's a fair amount of disagreement as to whether X constitutes an instance of that rule. A few detailed examples could resolve those arguments once and for all without much trouble.

Definitely very limited (or better yet no) direct skill bonuses from utilities though. I agree that that makes the math too wonky.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Although I agree that siloing has issues and isn't a real good answer, I think this answer is worse because of what it will lead to. Having combined attack/utility powers might be fine for spell casters of various types, but in the Martial power source, it'll mean skill powers. I think the ability to add +5 to xxx skill with a power is a terrible game mechanic.

Unlike combat where a power can add to damage or add an effect, there are few things that can be done to a skill other than "adding a bonus" or "instead of a major fail on missing by 5 or less, a major fail occurs on missing by 10 or less". I consider both of these to be totally artificial. I just dislike the entire concept of:

DM: "The DC is 22"
Player: "No problem. I have that skill maxed out with ability score, level, background, and item (and possibly even Skill Focus). I throw my +5 utility power on it and a 22 is automatic."

It's bad enough that WotC came out with the concept of background bonuses to skills. The point is, once the skill system is balanced, it's a mistake to come up with a bunch of different ways that a player can boost it even more.

Take Perception. I have yet to see a group that doesn't have at least one Perception monkey (or near Perception monkey) in it. This means that Passive Perception is a joke because any DC high enough for the Perception monkey to not notice is so high that the untrained other PCs really don't even have a chance.

I'd totally prefer a system of +3 for a trained skill instead of +5 and a system where ability scores don't increase by that much. That way:

Perception Monkey: +8
Trained Perception: +4 to +6
Untrained Perception: +0 to +3

But in 4E, the Perception Monkey is walking around with +15 or some such nonsense even before taking into account utilty powers. If the game system added a boatload of attack/utility powers, the Perception Monkey is even more of a joke.

IMO, the skill system is the most unbalanced part of 4E and needs a major overhaul, and adding more utility powers, especially if they add bonuses to skills, will make it worse.

I don't know why you assume that A) the only thing you can do with skills is drop a bonus on them, and B) that the only thing that is useful out of combat is a skill.

Spells for instance could do almost ANYTHING outside of combat. Actually quite a few of them are already usable (summons particularly, but I'd say a good percentage of the daily powers casters get work pretty well). Martial powers tend to be more focused and have less direct utility, but that's where designing things well would come in. Each power (daily ones at least) could easily have a non-combat function tied into it. Brute Strike could allow some kind of crazy weight to be lifted for a moment, etc. A few of them might be a little far-fetched, but I think you can do a reasonably decent job, and maybe there's an alternative way to do it, like just let the player pick a couple options that can be used in place of a daily or encounter power. The point being you could actually get rid of the separate 'utility' slot and thus cut back on power clutter without really losing anything much.

I think bonus stacking CAN get out of hand with skills, yes, clearly. OTOH that's an issue with stacking, not really with the skill system. Fix that and even a simple +5 bonus to a skill check once a day ability is perfectly fine. More than fine in fact, because it would let one character be as good as another once a day/encounter using a power slot instead of a feat slot for training. I think it isn't bad if skills can go to +10, at that level the system is pretty solid. It is when they go much beyond that it gets wonky.

 

[KidSnide]

I don't know why you assume that A) the only thing you can do with skills is drop a bonus on them, and B) that the only thing that is useful out of combat is a skill.

The problem is that - right now - all non-combat encounters are handled through the skill challenge mechanism. There's nothing wrong with applying skills to non-combat challenges, but there's only so much you can do in terms of creating abilities when non-combat encounters are nothing more than counting successes and failures.

----------------

Imagine that persuasion scenes were run through a variation of a skill challenge. The objective of a persuasion is still to achieve X successes before Y failures (where X and Y tend to be smaller numbers), but there is more of a framework on the actual persuasion roles.

DCs for persuasion tend to be very high (i.e. difficult, but possible for skilled characters to succeed), but there are a variety of significant (i.e. +5, +10, +15) bonuses available for either evidence that supports your argument or areas that the NPC is particularly sensitive about. Characters can make knowledge checks, insight checks or their knowledge of the situation and NPC to discovery evidence or areas of particular sensitivity. Characters can also choose to make arguments with bluff/diplomacy/intimidate, but their choice of which evidence to marshal and what angles to emphasize is just as important as their character's persuasive ability.

Every round, each character gets a turn to gather information, make a persuasion roll or aid another. After the PCs have gone, the NPC makes a counter-argument to a specific PC who has to respond. (Essentially, they are put on the spot and have to make a roll with whatever evidence they have available that relates to the particular counter-argument.) If there is a villain NPC trying to persuade the decision maker to go the opposite way, they also get to make a check here.

This system creates a number of interesting choices, since PCs need to decide whether they want to spend more time gathering evidence and learning about the NPC to get better bonuses (at the risk of having to worry about more counter-arguments) or just make the best arguments they can (at the risk of sticking their foot in a sensitive area).

I'm not saying this is the best framework for a persuasion encounter. It's just one example.

However, if that was the framework, it would be possible to have class abilities that reflected that framework. For example, a character could get the ability to make a free insight check (or history check, or streetwise check, etc...) at the beginning of an encounter to learn something about the NPC. Or, a character could have an interrupt ability that allows them to field a counter-argument directed at another PC. Or, a character could have an apologize ability that allows them to make a check to "undo" a failure.

-KS

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The problem is that - right now - all non-combat encounters are handled through the skill challenge mechanism. There's nothing wrong with applying skills to non-combat challenges, but there's only so much you can do in terms of creating abilities when non-combat encounters are nothing more than counting successes and failures.

----------------

Imagine that persuasion scenes were run through a variation of a skill challenge. The objective of a persuasion is still to achieve X successes before Y failures (where X and Y tend to be smaller numbers), but there is more of a framework on the actual persuasion roles.

DCs for persuasion tend to be very high (i.e. difficult, but possible for skilled characters to succeed), but there are a variety of significant (i.e. +5, +10, +15) bonuses available for either evidence that supports your argument or areas that the NPC is particularly sensitive about. Characters can make knowledge checks, insight checks or their knowledge of the situation and NPC to discovery evidence or areas of particular sensitivity. Characters can also choose to make arguments with bluff/diplomacy/intimidate, but their choice of which evidence to marshal and what angles to emphasize is just as important as their character's persuasive ability.

Every round, each character gets a turn to gather information, make a persuasion roll or aid another. After the PCs have gone, the NPC makes a counter-argument to a specific PC who has to respond. (Essentially, they are put on the spot and have to make a roll with whatever evidence they have available that relates to the particular counter-argument.) If there is a villain NPC trying to persuade the decision maker to go the opposite way, they also get to make a check here.

This system creates a number of interesting choices, since PCs need to decide whether they want to spend more time gathering evidence and learning about the NPC to get better bonuses (at the risk of having to worry about more counter-arguments) or just make the best arguments they can (at the risk of sticking their foot in a sensitive area).

I'm not saying this is the best framework for a persuasion encounter. It's just one example.

However, if that was the framework, it would be possible to have class abilities that reflected that framework. For example, a character could get the ability to make a free insight check (or history check, or streetwise check, etc...) at the beginning of an encounter to learn something about the NPC. Or, a character could have an interrupt ability that allows them to field a counter-argument directed at another PC. Or, a character could have an apologize ability that allows them to make a check to "undo" a failure.

-KS

Let me just point out that what you've outlined is perfectly well handled by the existing SC system. When an NPC makes a counter argument one of the PCs then responds to this situation and throws a check, the DM can describe that as an effective counter or not depending on the result, and what skill is used can be decided based on how they counter it.

You can simply grant checks or successes or bonuses for basically anything a PC does within the context of an SC. This is actually WHY mechanically the use of a check format and a fairly abstract success/fail count is such a powerful tool, because it is abstract enough to encompass ANY situation that the SC might evolve into, up to and including sword blows!

This is why I have little desire for some sort of 'social combat' system with other mechanics, because inevitably the more elaborate the mechanics become the harder it is to just incorporate any arbitrary eventuality into them easily. If they DO stay generalized enough for that, then there's really little justification for making them more complicated except to add tactical depth. The problem there is there is really no universal sort of 'tactics' that applies to every arbitrary situation in the world and you'd thus have to create not just a non-combat tactical system, but a specific one for every different tactical 'regime' that exists (after trying to determine what those are and the criteria for binning every encounter into one or another, and some rule for how to transition between them if a single encounter spans more than one).

 

[KidSnide]

Let me just point out that what you've outlined is perfectly well handled by the existing SC system. When an NPC makes a counter argument one of the PCs then responds to this situation and throws a check, the DM can describe that as an effective counter or not depending on the result, and what skill is used can be decided based on how they counter it.

What I outlined is a perfectly reasonable extension to the existing SC system, but the existing SC system itself doesn't provide that level of support.

In a RAW SC, the objective is to maximize the number of times your best skills are rolled and minimize the number of times that anything less than the party's best skills are rolled. Because the counter-arguments are directed at potentially unskilled PCs, they provide a reason for the 2nd and 3rd best character to make persuasion attempts.

More importantly, under this system, the primary emphasis of the players is on having their characters martial the evidence in the game world to make good arguments. This is critical because it means the players are thinking about the in-game situation at least as much as the out-of-game mechanics. Also, because the persuasion mechanics provide a standard use for skills, it forces the scenario designer to concentrate on "what evidence is relevant" and "what does this NPC care about" instead of "what skills are applicable".

...and, as I mentioned, having a standard skill challenge framework for persuasion encounters allows the creation of character abilities that apply to that framework.

That having been said, I agree with you on "social combat." I understand why hit points are a useful construct in simulating combat. I don't understand how they apply to social encounters. I'm all in favor of tactics, but tactics need to reflect the in-game reality. That's why flanking is a good combat tactic, but a silly mechanic for persuasive gameplay.

But I disagree with your suggestion that it's impossible or undesirable to build specific mechanics for non-combat encounters. I think the vast majority of non-combat encounters fit into a small number of bins. Sure, you also want a "free-form" system for encounters that don't fit into the standard categories. But, there's a big difference between a well constructed skill challenge and a crap skill challenge. Let's adopt some "best practices" for the common examples. (See, for example, PirateCat's "chase" skill challenge mechanics.)

-KS

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

What I outlined is a perfectly reasonable extension to the existing SC system, but the existing SC system itself doesn't provide that level of support.

In a RAW SC, the objective is to maximize the number of times your best skills are rolled and minimize the number of times that anything less than the party's best skills are rolled. Because the counter-arguments are directed at potentially unskilled PCs, they provide a reason for the 2nd and 3rd best character to make persuasion attempts.

I'm not at all sure why it would matter which side makes checks. I'm just saying, the principle with SCs is just generally that PCs do all the dice tossing. It is merely a simplification which streamlines play and keeps the action focused on what the PCs are doing. An NPC making a counter-argument is simply an obstacle. Whichever PC it might be directed at (if it is directed at a specific one even) will be able to make a check, possibly even choosing a specific counter-argument/tactic (IE using a favorable skill).

More importantly, under this system, the primary emphasis of the players is on having their characters martial the evidence in the game world to make good arguments. This is critical because it means the players are thinking about the in-game situation at least as much as the out-of-game mechanics. Also, because the persuasion mechanics provide a standard use for skills, it forces the scenario designer to concentrate on "what evidence is relevant" and "what does this NPC care about" instead of "what skills are applicable".

Again, I think that this is pretty much normal for SCs unless the DM is particularly uncreative. Naturally you DO want to allow players some leeway in what skills to use, but the SC system was NEVER intended to be "pick your best skill and make up a reason it would apply."

...and, as I mentioned, having a standard skill challenge framework for persuasion encounters allows the creation of character abilities that apply to that framework.

Well, I'm certainly not averse to their being more standard advice on specifics that are useful for say social challenges (or others either for that matter, many of the same considerations can apply in other cases where there is active opposition).

That having been said, I agree with you on "social combat." I understand why hit points are a useful construct in simulating combat. I don't understand how they apply to social encounters. I'm all in favor of tactics, but tactics need to reflect the in-game reality. That's why flanking is a good combat tactic, but a silly mechanic for persuasive gameplay.


But I disagree with your suggestion that it's impossible or undesirable to build specific mechanics for non-combat encounters. I think the vast majority of non-combat encounters fit into a small number of bins. Sure, you also want a "free-form" system for encounters that don't fit into the standard categories. But, there's a big difference between a well constructed skill challenge and a crap skill challenge. Let's adopt some "best practices" for the common examples. (See, for example, PirateCat's "chase" skill challenge mechanics.)

-KS

Oh, I think it is fine to build up a repertoire of 'tricks and devices' to use where you can say "OK, someone is arguing with the PCs, you can approach that like THIS" etc. That's fine. I am just of the mindset that in general the mechanics can be at most minor variations on the straight up base SC. There certainly can be ones that are very specific to a certain situation where you create a somewhat different mini-game, like the Suderhome example in DMG2. You just run the risk sometimes of those types of challenges suddenly blowing right out of your set of assumptions (like lets say the PCs decided to burn down the whole town, your highly customized mini-game probably won't handle that well but a vanilla SC is more likely to stay applicable because it is so generic in rules structure).

 

[keterys]

A recent RP in an adventure where the noble was demanding we provide proof of one of his folk's being a traitor almost turned into us torching the town

I _really_ would like skill checks in 5E to work more like some other modern RPGs. Roll a single check, go with it. So, maybe you're not rolling for if you can pick the lock - of _course_ you eventually pick the lock. You're rolling for picking the lock _in time_ or without setting off the traps, or quietly. Something that changes things. If there's no reason to care whether you made it this turn or next turn, then no roll. Just move on.

Every die roll should result in the adventure / action advancing, in interesting ways. Much like a skill challenge shouldn't have an end result that isn't interesting (success or failure), so should every skill check.

 

[KidSnide]

In a RAW SC, the objective is to maximize the number of times your best skills are rolled and minimize the number of times that anything less than the party's best skills are rolled. Because the counter-arguments are directed at potentially unskilled PCs, they provide a reason for the 2nd and 3rd best character to make persuasion attempts.

I'm not at all sure why it would matter which side makes checks. I'm just saying, the principle with SCs is just generally that PCs do all the dice tossing. It is merely a simplification which streamlines play and keeps the action focused on what the PCs are doing. An NPC making a counter-argument is simply an obstacle. Whichever PC it might be directed at (if it is directed at a specific one even) will be able to make a check, possibly even choosing a specific counter-argument/tactic (IE using a favorable skill).

I'm a little confused by your response. In my scenario the PCs were always the ones rolling the checks. The purpose of the counter-argument is that it continues the persuasion in a way that is unfavorable to the PCs. The NPC can direct it to a particular character (usually not the one with the best score) and, because it covers a particular topic, it limits the evidence / touch points that the PCs can bring to bear.

I also find that it makes the SC more exciting (because the PCs want to win before the next counter-argument) and creates a nice ebb-and-flow to the conversation. "I see you point. What about...?"

More importantly, under this system, the primary emphasis of the players is on having their characters martial the evidence in the game world to make good arguments. This is critical because it means the players are thinking about the in-game situation at least as much as the out-of-game mechanics. Also, because the persuasion mechanics provide a standard use for skills, it forces the scenario designer to concentrate on "what evidence is relevant" and "what does this NPC care about" instead of "what skills are applicable".

Again, I think that this is pretty much normal for SCs unless the DM is particularly uncreative. Naturally you DO want to allow players some leeway in what skills to use, but the SC system was NEVER intended to be "pick your best skill and make up a reason it would apply."

Well, I suppose it's normal for good skill challenges, but most of the published skill challenges include nothing but a list of skills and the plausible reasons PCs might use to bring them to bear. It is quite unusual for a published skill challenge to allow for the players to think about the actual in-game situation as something can be solved on its own terms. Typically, the in-game situation is nothing more than a context that players use to provide excuses for using their best skills.

Oh, I think it is fine to build up a repertoire of 'tricks and devices' to use where you can say "OK, someone is arguing with the PCs, you can approach that like THIS" etc. That's fine. I am just of the mindset that in general the mechanics can be at most minor variations on the straight up base SC. There certainly can be ones that are very specific to a certain situation where you create a somewhat different mini-game, like the Suderhome example in DMG2. You just run the risk sometimes of those types of challenges suddenly blowing right out of your set of assumptions (like lets say the PCs decided to burn down the whole town, your highly customized mini-game probably won't handle that well but a vanilla SC is more likely to stay applicable because it is so generic in rules structure).

I agree that the non-combat mini-games (as it were) should be mechanically light and use the same underlying constructs. As an initial starting point, I think of each of them as being "a skill challenge, but with a twist".

For example, PirateCat's chase mechanic involves the characters keeping a running total of their successes to represent the distance between the characters. In other words, if I'm at 105 and I get a 22 on my check, I advance to 127. If that equals the target's distance, I catch up. If the target opens up a sufficient distance, he gets away.

For another example, Mike Mearls provided a framework for the alert status of the Hill Giant Holdfast. An infiltration game (and many dungeons are appropriate for an infiltration game), consists of doing things that might affect the alert status mechanic. Either one or two stealthy PCs are trying to sneak in and out before the alarm goes off, or the PCs as a whole are trying to make progress in the dungeon before the residents rally to its defense.

Ideally, these structures should feel something like the in-game challenge and reflect the type of tension that is appropriate for that type of scenario. Also, a set of standard mechanics allows GMs to focus on what makes this particular persuasion, chase or infiltration different rather than how to design that type of scenario from whole cloth.

Of course, the game also needs a free-form skill challenge mechanic. (Creating mechanics for every possible scenario is, indeed, a fool's errand.) However, I would guess that at least three out of four non-combat encounters fall into 5-10 common types. Let's have some simple standard mechanics for those.

I mean, most versions of D&D have rules for weather and overland travel speed. Why aren't there rules for forging past natural obstacles? It's a staple of the genre, but any DM who wants to have his PCs brave Caradhras needs to create a fresh set of mechanics from scratch.

-KS

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

A recent RP in an adventure where the noble was demanding we provide proof of one of his folk's being a traitor almost turned into us torching the town

I _really_ would like skill checks in 5E to work more like some other modern RPGs. Roll a single check, go with it. So, maybe you're not rolling for if you can pick the lock - of _course_ you eventually pick the lock. You're rolling for picking the lock _in time_ or without setting off the traps, or quietly. Something that changes things. If there's no reason to care whether you made it this turn or next turn, then no roll. Just move on.

Every die roll should result in the adventure / action advancing, in interesting ways. Much like a skill challenge shouldn't have an end result that isn't interesting (success or failure), so should every skill check.

Yeah, I'll subscribe to your newsletter.

Having an adventure completely grind to a halt because of a flubbed roll or SC isn't all that fun for anyone. Failed rolls should have consequences, but unless those consequences are death (and you know about it beforehand), then they become either meaningless or game-stopping, because you will either just try again until you (or someone) succeeds, or you will stop trying. The ideal is probably somewhere in between, like you suggest.

You failed your check to open the door. Now you have to fight the monsters before you can try again (and automatically succeed because it no longer matters).