D&D 5E Q&A 8/1 - Attack & Skill Checks , Spell DCs and Stat Caps

[Majoru Oakheart]

I still think they should go way way back and use this skill system: https://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20110816

The system Mearls proposed back in 2011 just gives you ranks of skills from 0 to 6. If something's difficulty is at or below your rank, you just auto-succeed. If something's 1 rank higher, you'd make an ability check (DC 10) to pull it off.

This is actually very similar to the Numenera skill system. In it, you assign a number between 1 and 10 and rather than add modifiers to your d20 roll, you use your skills to lower the difficulty of the skill. If it reaches 0 you auto succeed. Otherwise you need to roll 3 times the(now lowered) difficulty or higher on a d20.

I'm guessing Monte go some of his ideas from extremely early versions of the D&D Next playtest. Or at least ideas they were tossing around for D&D Next.

I've always suspected that Monte left partially because he wanted to change things more than the rest of the team was willing to. I suspect we have the current skill system because someone on the team suggested it would be too jarring to change the mechanic that much from the system used in 3e and 4e.

 

[Falling Icicle]

This is one of the most disappointing articles I've read in a long time.

The idea that different scaling should be used for attack rolls because they happen more often is just absurd. What about more social-heavy campaigns? Plus, he talks about bounded accuracy and keeping DCs in check, so why not just do that with the skill DCs as well? Why do the skill DCs need to go so much higher than AC does?

Honestly, the +6/+12 thing reeks of copy/paste from the saving throw bonuses from 3e. Why +6/+12? Why not +5/+10?

Having Save DCs that didn't vary with spell level was one of the best things about Next. I'm honestly dumbfounded that they're going back to the way 3e did it. He says you should use your low level spells for utility, but that's exactly why I hated that system in 3e. I don't want to be forced into using my slots a certain way. I don't want trap choices. I want the flexibility of being able to prepare any spell at any level, and not be punished for it. This is especially important since characters get so few high level spells per day in Next.

Further, spells already scale with slots, and those that don't are usually not a problem. Charm Person only works on humanoids (which are rare at high levels), the target gets advantage on its save if its being threatened, and any hostile action breaks it free of the effect. Hold person has the same humanoid limitation and the target gets a saving throw every round to break free. I'm just not seeing a problem here. Do we really need to make these spells worthless at mid-high levels by giving them a lower save DC as well?

*Sigh* I'm getting so incredibly frustrated lately with all of the reversions to the mistakes of 3e. With each passing day, I see less and less reason to play Next instead of 3.5 or Pathfinder.

Well at least one good thing from Next is being kept, instead of reverting back to 3e.

 

[LightPhoenix]

I still think they should go way way back and use this skill system: https://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20110816

...

You don't have to worry about weird stuff like a character sometimes being able to jump a 20-ft. gap and sometimes only clearing 5 ft., or a diplomat farting and pissing someone off with a nat 1, or elite scouts failing to spot something while the half-blind wizard rolls a nat 20 and sees it. You've got a narrower range where there's actual uncertainty of your success. And if you really need to succeed but it's too challenging, you're encouraged to find a narrative solution rather than just throwing dice at the problem.

I definitely like this system as well. In essence, skills and skill checks are narrative tools, and should be treated as such. While a random approach to narrative can sometimes be amusing and an interesting roleplaying challenge, sometimes it produces very absurd results that end up breaking the narrative flow.

 

[Kobold Stew]

*Sigh* I'm getting so incredibly frustrated lately with all of the reversions to the mistakes of 3e.

I am feeling the same thing... Perhaps not to the same degree, but many of the great ideas in early packets are being washed away as we proceed.

 

[Li Shenron]

Interestingly, this article's explanations on why attacks vs skill bonuses might work differently are pretty much the same explanations I tried to give here a few days ago in another thread...

Eventually, I'm rather wondering if the skills max bonus isn't too low at +12, and could be even more, given the range of possible tasks.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

While I completely agree that skill check bonuses should be higher than attack bonuses, I'm in complete disagreement about spell save DCs being based on spell levels.

Other than the fact that it does slow down play and make things more complicated, there's the massive problem that spellcasters in 5e don't get the same amount of spells they got in 3e. Some of it is understandable because cantrips and rituals are at will, and should be expected to fill in that void. But now we're left with problems that because many lower level spells need to be boosted to higher level spell slots, we may ultimately have higher level spells that are never used, which will feel like a waste since many lower level spells don't have a higher level equivalent and they haven't bothered to have any of it's other effects boosted. But even if they gave more spell slots and made sure spells with save DCs also got other enhanced effects when used with higher level spells like greater area and more targets, we still have the complexity problems of having varying spell save DCs.

 

[Stalker0]

I personally prefer that spells don't scale with level and that spells should get HARDER to land at higher levels.

The reason: I think people are underestimating the DC gap between different saves for a given person/monster, especially at higher levels. Lets say i'm fighting a big physical brute, such that a fort based spell would only have a 40% chance of landing. If that beast has a -6 will compared to fort (which at high level i think is very plausible), then my will save spells would have a 70% chance of landing. At higher levels when i have the ability to be flexible with my spells, i think this has to be taken into account. If a wizard already has a good chance of landing the tougher save, then spells that target weaker saves will become automatic.

 

[darjr]

I don't like the +6 +12 thing. I do see a problem that it's trying to solve.

How about a sliding DC scale?

Easy 10
Moderate 15
Hard 20
Epic 30

Could that scale slide? Could some characters get to move the DC's around for a particular skill or task. So that Hard climbing tasks become moderate ones.
example:
Easy 5
Moderate 10
Hard 15
Epic 20

Note I'm not sure what the DC's are and what the differences between them are, I don't have the PDF in front of me. But I thought they were variable, the difference between the levels that is, so that this isn't like a simple +15.

 

[Warbringer]

[MENTION=52905]darjr[/MENTION]

I think this approach is the one they need to be taking, and possibly going a step further. There is absolutely no need for "5" being the difference between tiers. It's completely arbitrary, and really an historical leftover from early versions with bigger bonuses for skills.

I'd suggest "3", because it represents the benefit of advantage (or thereabouts), it represents the maximum benefit of "magical" bonuses, in theory, and it isn't the maximum life time achievement of an ability (thats a stretch,but you get where I'm coming from)

When the scale outstrips the progression to archive tiers then you have to increase the progression, or decrease the scale.

Easy (untrained) 8
Moderate (journeyman) 11
Difficult (skilled) 14
Hard (master) 17
Epic (legendary) 20

... Maybe starting at 10 and going to 22 (but it goes to 11, twice)

 

[keterys]

If the highest DC is 20, then you'll have PCs who regularly make it at 1st level. Without training.

Skill DCs are one of those actually easy parts of the rules to figure out. Figure out what the odds you want are. Set your desired percentages.

Now one thing that D&D usually does what I'd consider backwards: Figure out what's altering those odds - note that the latter could get a little crazy For example, do you want to have races get bonuses to skills? Classes? Items? Spells? If you let everything alter things, your odds change. So figure that out in advance, instead of after the effect (or never figure out, as the case may be).

If a cantrip is adding 1d4 to every cantrip of note, for example, then you're going to see some crazy skill inflation.