D&D 5E D&D Next Q&A: 03/14/2014

[Jeff Carlsen]

For some odd reason, the first thing that came to my mind when I read answer #3, is that now a 5e 1st level PC with proficiency and expertise has +4, which is exactly what a 3e 1st level PC had in a maxed-out class skill, while a 1st level PC with proficiency only has +2, which is exactly what a 1st level PC had in a maxed-out cross-class skill. Nothing more than a coincidence, but it's what immediately came to me

I noticed that too. It also illustrates the effect of bounded accuracy. Skill ranks maxed out at 23 in third edition. With expertise, the maximum is +12. So the bounds have been cut in half.

 

[koga305]

Isn't true in any way?

Ok then try creating a fighter character in 4E who can contribute meaningfully in ranged combat.

If it isn't melee then its don't bother compared to a "ranged" class. That is the kind of gap I'm talking about.

Not to nitpick, but the Slayer fighter seems like it would be quite competent with a bow - doubled Dex on damage, which is already a secondary stat.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Not to nitpick, but the Slayer fighter seems like it would be quite competent with a bow - doubled Dex on damage, which is already a secondary stat.

My half orc archer (fighter slayer) with a back up longsword out damaged our groups Dwarven Ranger (archer build) 9 out of 10 fights, and always had better to hit... but less attacks

 

[Li Shenron]

I noticed that too. It also illustrates the effect of bounded accuracy. Skill ranks maxed out at 23 in third edition. With expertise, the maximum is +12. So the bounds have been cut in half.

I am still not sure however if bounded accuracy should have really been applied to skills... as a matter of fact I am not even sure if d20 should have really been applied to skills!

 

[Dausuul]

Still not too happy about the bard being made a full caster. I guess we'll see how it pans out, but the odds of me giving the bard class a shot remain substantially lower.

And expertise has been cut from straight +5 to doubling your proficiency bonus? What the heck? My group's single biggest problem with 5E has always been that skills are basically worthless; the d20 roll overwhelms your sad little modifier. Expertise was the one way of getting a bonus big enough to notice. Of all the things to nerf!

Bounded accuracy makes sense in the context of attacks and defenses, because you still have hit points and damage as a way of distinguishing the mighty from the weak. But there are no hit points in a skill check. Bounded accuracy applied to skills just cripples the skill-monkey.

 

[variant]

I noticed that too. It also illustrates the effect of bounded accuracy. Skill ranks maxed out at 23 in third edition. With expertise, the maximum is +12. So the bounds have been cut in half.

3e became quite ridiculous. You could have high stats from leveling and magical items, a +10 bonus from another magical item, 23 ranks in the skill, skill synergy bonus, bonuses from different feats, a number of situational bonuses, and I know I am forgetting other bonuses as well. The whole skill system broke down shortly after mid-level.

 

[pemerton]

I agree. Part of me feels they are too stymied by simplicity. It would have been okay to have two progressions. Proficiency from +2 to +6. And expertise from +5 to +10.

Is +4 to +12 that different from +5 to +10?

Or did you mean +5 to +10 stacking with the +2 to +6?

 

[Umbran]

This feeds directly into a sense of entitlement. After putting so much of your character building currency into doing one thing really well then darn it, you better be able to do that one thing ALL...THE..TIME. This leads to the kind of stuff like flying creatures only able to hop or melee characters feel deprotagonized or trippable piles of ooze because oh noes we can't run across anything not subject to our XXYY combo.

Entitlement? Really? You know what entitlement is? The recent "I can do everything because I am a hero" demands which you are indirectly feeding into. If there are people out there who believe that only minmaxed specialized characters should even attempt doing something then it is entirely their problem as this isn't true in any way.

Gentlemen,

It seems to me that no playstyle has cornered the market on feelings of entitlement. That's a general human trait, not one associated with only one kind of player. Pointing the Finger of Entitlement in this manner is pretty much a rude gesture, so how about we stop, hm? Thanks.

 

[Minigiant]

Is +4 to +12 that different from +5 to +10?

Or did you mean +5 to +10 stacking with the +2 to +6?

I really never felt better in play using a d20 unless I am at least 3 points better. 4 for really feel.
It takes a lot of rolls (like combat) for 10% to matter in play. 10 actually.
It is good for a skill that your table uses all the time. Like perception in an exploration or mystery heavy game.

But one of rarely used skill, it is often not felt. This can also backfire as the player forces checks to get value.
"I use Nature on everything'"

I am still not sure however if bounded accuracy should have really been applied to skills... as a matter of fact I am not even sure if d20 should have really been applied to skills!

I always thought a d10 or d12 was better with skills.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Those that require huge mechanics only based gaps to recognize any difference between characters aren't even talking about the same game as I am.


The insect colony reference was in regard to over-specialization. Doing one thing, being a one trick pony.

When the rest of the game design takes that over specialization as standard and raises the bar on doing ANYTHING to account for that specialization then you have mechanical inflation. Those that specialize are the new normal, those that don't are now incompetent at anything.

This feeds directly into a sense of entitlement. After putting so much of your character building currency into doing one thing really well then darn it, you better be able to do that one thing ALL...THE..TIME. This leads to the kind of stuff like flying creatures only able to hop or melee characters feel deprotagonized or trippable piles of ooze because oh noes we can't run across anything not subject to our XXYY combo.

This is why I much prefer that specialization give an edge instead of outright trivializing actions that are a challenge to non-specialists. The decision to specialize shouldn't be the ONLY option available in order to function. The added benefit is that when a character needs to do something the situation demands that is outside their specialty, there is a chance to usefully participate.

Must spread XP blah blah.