D&D 5E A traditionalist at heart, a NEW mechanic I desperately want from 5e.

[ZombieRoboNinja]

These are good points, and I'd forgotten about them.
I even agree, but only to a point.


In my opinion, various knowledge skills should give you an advantage to defeat the beast (in combat or plotwise/storywise). E.G. for a werewolf go get wolvesbane or silver, or simply do detective work in town to determine who the werewolf commoner is. However, if I, an accomplished fighter who has slain several foes of varying difficulties, sees a new monster...I should have at least a general idea of whether it can totally waste me or if it will be a cakewalk. I might not have knowledge of demons or dungeon denizens or whatever...and so wouldn't know that its tentacles can excrete poison...but I should be able to gauge, based on size, apparent movements, and general genre understanding if it is something I'm supposed to be afraid of and run, or if it's something that I'm so powerful that I think is wimpy.

So let's say I'm a level 10 fighter facing a big hulking unknown beast. The DM will describe to the player its size and appearance, and the player can roll a knowledge check to see if he has any idea of its abilities. Beyond that, he can take a few whacks to see how tough it is (gauge its AC and HP)... I don't really see how the character would have any immediate idea how dangerous it was, any more than the player would, unless we're talking about some supernatural ability to "sense its ki level" or whatever.

 

[Abstruse]

So let's say I'm a level 10 fighter facing a big hulking unknown beast. The DM will describe to the player its size and appearance, and the player can roll a knowledge check to see if he has any idea of its abilities. Beyond that, he can take a few whacks to see how tough it is (gauge its AC and HP)... I don't really see how the character would have any immediate idea how dangerous it was, any more than the player would, unless we're talking about some supernatural ability to "sense its ki level" or whatever.

That's where the various knowledge checks come in. It's less "I sense a strong power level...IT'S OVER NINE THOUSAND!!" and more "I've been around the block enough times and fought enough enemies and traded enough stories to know that this guy's going to be pretty tough/a pushover/whatever". You may never have run into a hook horror before, but you might have heard a tale from your master about fighting one, or talk in a tavern with another adventurer years ago. Or something like a dragon, you might be able to tell by the coloration and size of its scales how old it is.

If you read a lot of action-oriented fiction (I've run into it a lot in hardboiled mysteries), a strong fighter being able to pick out another strong fighter by the way he holds himself is a strong trope that's been going on for ages. "The thugs were green. I could see the fear and uncertainty in their eyes when I wasn't intimidated. Their boss in the back, though, he was unfazed. He seemed to be looking at nothing but seeing everything, and there wasn't a wasted movement in every action he performed."

So making a knowledge check to get a basic idea of how tough something is fits well with both those tropes. Being able to quickly assess an opponent should be something every adventurer learns how to do very early in their career for survival's sake if nothing else.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Here is a request for something that fits with D&D (IMO, YMMV), but has been somewhat conspicuously absent (or tacked on).

What I'd like is for the gravity of the threat to be at least somewhat intelligible to both players and their characters.

Thoughts? Am I missing existing mechanics for this? Are there unseen problems with this that I'm not noticing?

I used to handle this in a variety of ways, including simple Intelligence checks and the like (for things like how hard a pit might be to Jump over). I eventually got tired of it, and when I was finally transitioning to my new RPG (rather than just house ruling), I made a new skill: Assess.

You can roll an Assess check to determine how hard something might be. It looks something like this:[sblock]

Assess (Int)

Assess DC
You can attempt to appraise the difficulty of a situation. Keep in mind that although your character will know the DC in-game, his knowledge of it will not be in numbers, nor will he grasp the mechanical side of things. He might realize that the orc he is fighting gets +9 to melee attacks, but to him, he would just see a dangerous, strong, trained orc warrior, and he would plan his actions around that accordingly (taking the focused total defense action, keeping the orc from reaching his less trained comrades, etc.).

The difficulty is based on your interaction with the check you are trying to assess:

• If you are actively opposing the check in some way (such as defending against the attack, or climbing a rock face), the DC is +0.
• If you are merely observing and not actively opposing the check, the DC is 2 higher (such as watching an ally defend himself in combat, or watching an ally climb a rock face).
• If you are trying to judge something with minimal interaction, the DC is 5 higher (such as trying to judge how good a potential enemy is at attacking after he has taken a stance and is prepared to fight, or eyeing a cliff before attempting to climb it).
• If you are trying to judge something without any sort of interaction with the check yet, the DC is 10 higher (such as trying to judge how good a potential enemy is at attacking before he has even drawn his sword, or judging how hard a cliff is to climb based solely on the description of another).

Some example DCs you can determine are as follows:

• Skill Check DC: One-half the DC of the skill check. (If the Jump check DC is 15, then the DC to assess it is 7)
• Hit Points or Temporary Hit Points: The number of hit points the away from 0 the subject has. (If someone has 42 hit points remaining, the DC is 42)
• Attribute Check: 10 + check necessary to succeed. (If the DC to succeed is 6, the DC is 16)
• Bonus to Skill Check: 5 + bonus on the skill check. (If someone gets +13 to Evasion checks, the DC is 18)
• Weapon or Armor Rank: 10 + 5 per rank. (If someone has 2 ranks in daggers, the DC is 15)
• Saving throw: 5 + modifier to the roll. (If you wanted to assess an opponent's mental strength [Will save], and they had a +2 on Will saves, the DC is 7)
• Base attack or defense bonus: 5 + base attack or defense bonus multiplied by 2. (If someone has a base attack of +5, the DC is 15).
• Melee attack, ranged attack, or ACvM: 5 + modifier to the roll. (If someone gets +5 on attacks, the DC is 10)
• Damage Bonus: 5 + modifier to damage. (If someone gets +8 to damage, the DC is 13)
• Combat maneuver: 5 + ½ the modifier to the roll. (If someone gets +25 to grapple checks, the DC is 17)
• ACvR or ACvS: AC of the subject - 5. (If the subject has an ACvR of 18, the DC is 13)
• Attribute score: Attribute score - 5. (If a creature has a Strength score of 22, the DC is 17)
• Speed of the subject: 5 + 1 per 10 feet moved this round. (If the subject moved 100 feet this round, the DC is 15)
• Initiative: 5 + modifier to the roll. (If someone gets +12 to initiative, the DC is 17).
• Trait score: 5 + 1 per trait score. (If someone has a trait score of 15, the DC is 20)
• Damage reduction: 10 + 1 per 2 damage reduction. (If someone has a damage reduction of 14, the DC is 17)
• Another capability of an individual: appropriate DC, as set by the GM.
• Another DC of a check: appropriate DC, as set by the GM.

Failure
If you fail by 1-4 on the check, you believe that the DC is 1d6 higher or lower than it actually is (determined by the GM). If you fail by 5 or more on the check, you do not know the DC. For example, if you tried to determine another creatures hit points, and you failed by 1-4, you would think it had 1d6 more or less hit points than it actually has. If you fail by 5 or more, you do not have any idea.

[/sblock]
Now, obviously we'd have to tweak it a few ways to get what you want. We'd need to adjust for flatter math, we'd want it to be simpler, and we'd want a "is this too hard" gauge, rather than a "my character discerns a piece of information" tool (as much as I like the latter more than the former). So, it might end up looking like this:

Assess DC Rules
You can attempt to appraise the difficulty of a situation. Use whatever skill and ability seems appropriate.

The difficulty is based on your interaction with the check you are trying to assess:
• If you are actively opposing the check in some way, the DC is +0.
• If you are trying to judge something with minimal interaction, the DC is 2 higher.
• If you are trying to judge something without any sort of interaction yet, the DC is 4 higher.

Some example DCs you can determine are as follows:
• If the threat is likely easy, the DC is 10.
• If the threat is likely a fair challenge, the DC is 11.
• If the threat is likely a boss fight/difficult challenge, the DC is 12.
• If the threat is beyond their capability (but they might get lucky), the DC is 11.
• If the threat is auto death, the DC is 10.

So, we get something like this:
• So, the DC of those 2 kobold guards up ahead? Probably DC 12 (10 for likely easy, +2 for minimal interaction).
• The DC of Orcus out in the open? Probably DC 12 (10 for auto death, +2 for minimal interaction).
• The DC for a puny kobold (who is actually a polymorphed dragon)? Probably DC 12 (10 for auto death, +2 for minimal interaction).
• The DC for a description of a group of bugbears that a town wants you to take out at level 2? Probably DC 16 (12 for difficult challenge, + 4 for judging something with no real interaction).
• The DC to disarm that trap that releases toxic flammable gas which triggers the spark runes on the ground over the hollow pit (with spikes in it) that you're standing on? Probably DC 13 (11 for beyond their capability but they can get lucky, +2 for minimal interaction).

You can always tweak the math a little to get it where you want, but it gives you some mechanical framework to fiddle with and use, if nothing else. I, personally, prefer the "your character learns a piece of information (attack bonus, AC, or the like); how does he react to it?" more than this, but this is certainly simple (and I'm sure I'll get "it's too complicated" as a couple replies, too). Anyways, just a thought. As always, play what you like

 

[tlantl]

from both a player and Dm perspective I prefer that the relative strength of a creature or character be something you learn about as you play. I also like it when veteran players pretend not to know the specifics of a monster they may have fought using other characters when they are using a new character or playing one of their hirelings or henchmen.

I think there's enough metagaming going on in this hobby as it is I am not going to get on board with an idea that basically tells the players how tough an encounter is. Some of the fun in playing D&D for me and my friends is taking risks and overcoming seemingly insurmountable odds. If you want to play this way then go right ahead but please don't make me and those who like the mystery of a new creature have to play that way too.

Use in game techniques to instill fear such as rumors and legends and horror stories. Sometimes a well told lie is easily more effective than a game mechanic to impart the danger or lack there of in your players.

Last time I looked D&D was a role playing game. From my perspective that means pretending to be someone who lives in a setting, interacting with the people and places around them. sometime you have to fight things, sometimes you go looking for a fight, but D&D isn't a combat simulator no matter how hard the designers of the last version tried to make it one. Play your ignorant pretend self as if everything in the world can and will kill you and don't worry about whether you should run away or stay and fight.

Oh, and don't name your character until 5th level.

 

[nomotog]

I don't think this needs to be supported mechanically by the rules itself necessarily.

It could be handled by the DM narratively. NPCs flee or warn them (Gandalf and the Balrog), they hear rumors beforehand (so they know that the demon they will encounter is the slayer of worlds etc).

In screen writing there's this concept of "planting and reaping" I think. You plant an idea somewhere in the beginning of the narrative and when it comes up later in the story you can reap the benefits of this planting (emotions, etc.).

So creative dungeon mastering might be the answer. Take cues from screenwriting.

-YRUSirius

Doing it in the narrative it the best way to do it, but I don't think you have to make the DM to do it. They can build guidelines into the monster rules themselves. They are already doing this a little with there new flat math. If you see someone in heavy fullplate, you know they that they will have some monster AC.

It's not hard to expand that to other places like HP. If a monster is big they should have a lot of HP. They could put in soft guidelines like all large monsters have at least 100 HP, or no small creature should have more then 70.

I'll also point out that some enemies shouldn't look how they fight, because they are meant to trick your expectations. The monk is a good example. He may look like a feeble old man, but he can defeat the strongest fighters.

 

[DogBackward]

I don't want PC's to be able to look at a monster and say "Yeah, this thing can kill us, let's run." I want them to look at a monster and say "I have no idea if this can kill us or not... let's be cautious until we can figure things out."

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I don't want PC's to be able to look at a monster and say "Yeah, this thing can kill us, let's run." I want them to look at a monster and say "I have no idea if this can kill us or not... let's be cautious until we can figure things out."

This is my approach, though I'll grant that it is in part because it fits very well with two other things that I see as positive:

• It's one more mystery, and the players in our group really like mystery.
• Uncertainty and doubt are highly valuable when you want to run a game somewhat less than "all out" in challenge, because the threat of the unknown is often greater than reality.

That said, to me the most valuable mechanical means of "gauging fights" are the mechanics that make retreat a valid option--enough hit points to learn that the monk hits hard without running out immediately, spells to conceal retreat, "hero points" to spend to survive something deadly this round, etc.

So even if there were such an "assessment" mechanic in the game, I'd rarely use it. It undermines the above by putting a finer control on the party knowing when they can or can't handle something. Such a fine control, when it finally goes bad, can go bad in a hurry. I'd rather robust support elsewhere, that assumes that sometimes parties will get in over their heads.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

On a related tangent, I think the minutiae of PCs being able to run away is very important. If the monsters they face are always quicker, and always optimally played by the DM so they chase down the PCs (and incapacitated PCs are always classed as unconscious), then the important sense of mystery will never be sustained.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Doug McCrae]

Are you trying to tell me that the aurumvorax - a 3ft long badger-like creature with 12 hit dice, AC0, and 8 claw attacks for 1d6 each - is a stupid monster?

 

[Trance-Zg]

Mostly I just want 5e to take the best of all prior editions and cobble together a fantastic D&D experience. I want that to the degree that I hope they restrain themselves from introducing too many new rules or elements that don't hearken back to at least one (but ideally more than one) prior edition.


BUT!

Here is a request for something that fits with D&D (IMO, YMMV), but has been somewhat conspicuously absent (or tacked on).


What I'd like is for the gravity of the threat to be at least somewhat intelligible to both players and their characters.



In my opinion, it's good game design to include elements and foes that the player characters can't defeat (yet) unless they're truly lucky (and foolish). However, in most of D&D it is not always obvious whether the tentacled monstrosity is cr 5 or 25...and whether players need to fight or run. Similarly, there is the element of the npc (or any statted, leveled humanoid) who might be level 1 or might be level 20. Just how impressed/intimidated/likely to die, is something I'd like for my player characters (or at minimum, players) to be able to gauge.


Now, I'm not saying that there couldn't be trickery involved, with a high level sorceror posing as a peasant (or somesuch). I also don't want to entirely remove the mystery. And yes, description of the monster or the NPC, including gear, is a tool, but not a great one.



So...what I'm asking for is a way for characters to gauge whether an encounter or monster or npc is: likely easy, likely a fair challenge, likely a boss fight/difficult challenge, beyond their capability (but they might get lucky), or auto death (attacking Orcus at level 3 when he's undisguised and apparent...but even when players just see "a fat demon the size of an ogre" and they COULD defeat the ogre).


Thoughts? Am I missing existing mechanics for this? Are there unseen problems with this that I'm not noticing?

This isn't WoW!

What do you wan't next?
All creatures walk around with 20 ft wide neon nameplates in case you don't know the name of unknown creature?

You have your knowledge checks.

If no one in party doesn't have them? Too bad. Run away or charge and see how it goes.

You can also roll sense motive/insight if you interact with high level character that is disguised as a beggar.