D&D 5E D&D Q&A: 09/19/2013

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I'm also not that keen on reintroducing weapon proficiencies that create a strong incentive to avoid certain weapons at higher levels.

I get the feeling the Fighter (and other warriors) will have things like "Proficiency in Martial Weapons" instead of the AD&D approach to proficiencies where the player must choose a group of specific weapons.

 

[Remathilis]

You know what I found to be the MOST interesting part of the Q&A?



Change your skills into a short phrase. In essence... you take Aspects. For those who love the FATE method of story-based bonuses when applicable... you can get even more specific with what you are good at. Rather than Perception you have Eyes Like A Hawk. Rather than Persuasion you have Talk Rings Around People. Rather than Arcana you have Master Of The Planes.

Which I think lends itself rather nicely to being much more specific about who your PC, what they know, and when the bonus would apply to certain situations. It would definitely tap into the story-base game market for enhancing your D&D game, which I think would make quite a number of D&D players with new school sensibilities happy to have if they want it.

Technically, 3e already did this.

Skills and Feats: You can call your skills, feats, and class features whatever your character would call them. Lidda, the halfling rogue, talks about “footpaddin’ ” rather than about “moving silently,” so her player writes “Footpaddin’ ” down on her character sheet to stand for the Move Silently skill. Ember, the monk, calls her
Move Silently skill “Rice Paper Walk.”
You might also think of other skills that your character ought to have. Your DM has guidelines (in the Dungeon Master’s Guide) for creating new skills.

It was an often ignored feature hidden in an obscure spot at the end of Chapter 6.

 

[I'm A Banana]

It was an often ignored feature hidden in an obscure spot at the end of Chapter 6.

It was also more effort than the DMG suggested it might be. Because of how interlocked 3e's rules were, anything more dramatic than a superficial name-change would have been pretty rough. Imagine combining Move Silently and Hide into Stealth before 3.5 did it for us...not something I would've felt that safe doing as a DM, and I'm some sort of big internet dork about this game.

 

[TwoSix]

Technically, 3e already did this.

It was an often ignored feature hidden in an obscure spot at the end of Chapter 6.

Yes, but the difference with this suggested system is that the 3e rule was simply a rename, whereas the "player-phrased skill" (which I'd say is almost identical to 13th Age's backgrounds) moves the use of a skill to negotiation between the DM and the player.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

Yes I remember 3e's suggestion about naming skills what you wanted. It rarely got used in practice though.

As for new skills to add, I find that the skill list lacks a broadly defined skill that deals with mechanical devices and architecture, like Engineering. It seems to be something brought up in the Pathfinder games I play as some player always got Knowledge: Engineering, and it would be probably something in some games, whether it be a steampunk one, has ships in it or involves siege warfare. Some of it could be proficiencies though, especially if the DM wants to avoid the whole, "adept in all things technical" but some skills like Perform or Arcana are sort of that way too.

 

[Weather Report]

I get the feeling the Fighter (and other warriors) will have things like "Proficiency in Martial Weapons" instead of the AD&D approach to proficiencies where the player must choose a group of specific weapons.

Of course, just like it is now for the fighter, barbarian, etc, and the mage will be proficient in the usual dagger, quarterstaff, etc.

They've just removed the attack bonus from all classes.

Now I wonder how spell DCs will scale, will it be by level, as previously mentioned by Mearls?

 

[Li Shenron]

Now I wonder how spell DCs will scale, will it be by level, as previously mentioned by Mearls?

That's what they've said IIRC. I wonder if spells DCs will match ST bonuses appropriately...

DC = 10 + stat + spell level
ST = d20 + stat + proficiency

Spell level goes from +0 to +9, while proficiency goes from +0 to +6, IIUC. But it's a bit more complicated since the spellcaster has limited slots so won't always get the max bonus all day, while OTOH the defender cannot choose which ST to make, therefore a clever spellcaster targeting an enemy that presumably isn't proficient in the need ST, is going to have a time easier than in 3e.

Of course, there might be another bonus or two added to the equation, or further numeric changes later...

 

[Warbringer]

So...


So

at 1st

Stat +4
Level +2
Prof +5
Magic + 0

Is + 11 for "its what I do.. [insert class feature]" too high for 1st? Does this mean you have to have Prof and high stat in you [insert class feature] to be playabale? Definitely reinforces class core feature.

at 20th

stat +5
level +6
Prof +5
Magic +3

Is +19 really bounded accuracy? I guess just +8 for 20 levels is, damage is where the real scale is

 

[DEFCON 1]

So...


So

at 1st

Stat +4
Level +2
Prof +5
Magic + 0

Is + 11 for "its what I do.. [insert class feature]" too high for 1st? Does this mean you have to have Prof and high stat in you [insert class feature] to be playabale? Definitely reinforces class core feature.

Well let's see, picking a simple lock is a Moderate (DC15) challenge. For a 1st level rogue with a proficiency in thieve's tools... having that +11 and thus only needing a 4+ on the d20 to pick a simple lock seems about right to me. For even the most basic rogue, a simple lock should be simple to pick. For all other dexterous characters (who don't have proficiency in thieve's tools nor have an expert bonus)... they need an 11+ on the d20 for the same simple lock. For the typical lock (DC 20)... a rogue would need a 9+, the other characters would need 16+.

For picking locks at the very least... these numbers seem good to me.

 

[Paraxis]

I like this proficiency system a lot, but I hope they throw out the 'expertise' system I don't think it is needed.

A rogue will have proficiency in lock picking/trap removal so d20+dex mod +2 at first level sounds fine to me, if the dex based ranger wants to try he just rolls d20+dex and doesn't get the proficiency bonus.

If they do keep expertise I would want it to be a d6 instead of +5 so that it is more random and on average a lower amount. I would also want every class to have some form of expertise, I would stay away from attack, spell and save bonuses, and leave it with skills. So a fighter might be an expert in athletics and small unit tactics, a paladin might be an expert in religion and sense motive, etc...