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

[KidSnide]

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.

Skills in D&DN are based on the assumption that a substantial chance of failure or success is desired anytime you roll the die. That works if you want any character to be able to succeed at any reasonable skill check, but is a lousy way to simulate reality.

If you want a realistic view of skills, the DM has to decide whether the particular character at issue automatically succeeds, automatically fails or gets to roll a check. A door might have a DC of 13 to break down, but the hulking barbarian auto-succeeds, the fighting cleric gets to roll and the weakling wizard auto-fails based on the DM's sense of how the world works.

If you take the view that any given task has a fixed DC that any person can attempt with their rules-derived modifier, you quickly end up with total nonsense where an idiot shepherd (modifier -2) can outwit a skilled archmage (modifier +11).

-KS

 

[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.

 

[Klaus]

Skills in D&DN are based on the assumption that a substantial chance of failure or success is desired anytime you roll the die. That works if you want any character to be able to succeed at any reasonable skill check, but is a lousy way to simulate reality.

If you want a realistic view of skills, the DM has to decide whether the particular character at issue automatically succeeds, automatically fails or gets to roll a check. A door might have a DC of 13 to break down, but the hulking barbarian auto-succeeds, the fighting cleric gets to roll and the weakling wizard auto-fails based on the DM's sense of how the world works.

If you take the view that any given task has a fixed DC that any person can attempt with their rules-derived modifier, you quickly end up with total nonsense where an idiot shepherd (modifier -2) can outwit a skilled archmage (modifier +11).

-KS

Emphasis mine. That advice has been in the rules for a while now. The DM should only bother with setting a DC when there's a significant chance of failure.

 

[fuindordm]

Skills in D&DN are based on the assumption that a substantial chance of failure or success is desired anytime you roll the die. That works if you want any character to be able to succeed at any reasonable skill check, but is a lousy way to simulate reality.

If you take the view that any given task has a fixed DC that any person can attempt with their rules-derived modifier, you quickly end up with total nonsense where an idiot shepherd (modifier -2) can outwit a skilled archmage (modifier +11).

-KS

Skill rolls would feel more realistic, and modest differences in skill modifiers would be more important, if the roll was on a bell curve or triangle 'curve'. Why not try 2d10 for skill rolls?

 

[ExploderWizard]

Skill rolls would feel more realistic, and modest differences in skill modifiers would be more important, if the roll was on a bell curve or triangle 'curve'. Why not try 2d10 for skill rolls?

I have used 2d10 for such things in my own houserules for quite a while (for B/X) and it does cut down on the super low results issue.

 

[Klaus]

I have used 2d10 for such things in my own houserules for quite a while (for B/X) and it does cut down on the super low results issue.

The 3d6 variant in Unearthed Arcana (with crits happening on an 16-18 and a fumble on a 3-5) seems to minimize chance the most. It'd create a very different feel than a d20 game.

 

[Dausuul]

Skills in D&DN are based on the assumption that a substantial chance of failure or success is desired anytime you roll the die. That works if you want any character to be able to succeed at any reasonable skill check, but is a lousy way to simulate reality.

If you want a realistic view of skills, the DM has to decide whether the particular character at issue automatically succeeds, automatically fails or gets to roll a check. A door might have a DC of 13 to break down, but the hulking barbarian auto-succeeds, the fighting cleric gets to roll and the weakling wizard auto-fails based on the DM's sense of how the world works.

If you take the view that any given task has a fixed DC that any person can attempt with their rules-derived modifier, you quickly end up with total nonsense where an idiot shepherd (modifier -2) can outwit a skilled archmage (modifier +11).

What would be an example of a situation requiring a Strength check where the weakling wizard ought to have a non-trivial chance of beating the hulking barbarian?

 

[KidSnide]

What would be an example of a situation requiring a Strength check where the weakling wizard ought to have a non-trivial chance of beating the hulking barbarian?

Those situations are few and far between, which is why I pointed out that a DM-gatekeeper is necessary to make sure that the world makes sense. But that being said, I can think of situations where you might want a strength check (e.g. holding on to the edge of a cliff to avert plummeting) where you might want the hulking barbarian to have a non-trivial chance of failure and yet you also want the wizard to have a non-trivial chance of success.

That's essentially why the skill math is the way it is. The designers have optimized skill checks for dynamic situations where success and failure should be possibilities for all. A side effect of this is that skill checks with fixed DC generate nonsensical results if you are using them to measure capability at ordinary skilled tasks. D&DN skills fail miserably if you are trying to measure "probability of successfully removing an appendix" as between skilled surgeons and untrained amateurs.

So, essentially, the DM advice says that the skill system works pretty well when you can't figure out if something should succeed or fail. And, if the DM can figure out whether something should succeed or fail without reference to the dice, then... well... don't roll the dice. I look at this and conclude that this seems like a good decision for D&D, but it's a definite change from the 3.x concept that tasks in the universe have a fixed DC and a character's skill modifier determines that's character's chance of success without the need for DM input.

-KS

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

Those situations are few and far between, which is why I pointed out that a DM-gatekeeper is necessary to make sure that the world makes sense. But that being said, I can think of situations where you might want a strength check (e.g. holding on to the edge of a cliff to avert plummeting) where you might want the hulking barbarian to have a non-trivial chance of failure and yet you also want the wizard to have a non-trivial chance of success.

That's essentially why the skill math is the way it is. The designers have optimized skill checks for dynamic situations where success and failure should be possibilities for all. A side effect of this is that skill checks with fixed DC generate nonsensical results if you are using them to measure capability at ordinary skilled tasks. D&DN skills fail miserably if you are trying to measure "probability of successfully removing an appendix" as between skilled surgeons and untrained amateurs.

I'll quote you (and give XP) because this was exactly the situation where my players arrived in our last session. Both the mage and the barbarian had to swim a very dangerous watercourse or drowning to death was a real possibility. I set a DC of 15, for the str check, and obviously the barbarian was at great advantage with his 17 str and athletics proficiency (for a total of +5) against the mage's 8 str and no proficiency.

In the end they succeeded, but both characters were facing danger in a meaningful way. Building a challenge that is life-threatening for all characters in a group is just funnier. If I have to outright kill the mage to send something dangerous at the barbarian, I'll just opt not to do it. If challenging the mage means making the life of the barbarian trivial, adventuring will soon become boring.

People seem all worried that characters are equally challenged by combat, but adventurers risk their lives in other situations as well. The 3E paradigm, where a specialist soon leaves the other characters behind, makes it hard for the DM to create challenges that threaten all of the party members. I think this new approach is much better.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

People seem all worried that characters are equally challenged by combat, but adventurers risk their lives in other situations as well. The 3E paradigm, where a specialist soon leaves the other characters behind, makes it hard for the DM to create challenges that threaten all of the party members. I think this new approach is much better.

I honestly think that this bit better illustrates Exploder Wizards point. If you allow for skill levels to be so far apart, you basically create situations where you have to be this tall to ride. If the DC for doing something is 25 (for example) and the specialist is +22 and the non specialist is +4 (base stat bonus essentially) then one character is pretty much automatically succeeding while the other is automatically failing. And, in 3e, get that much of a spread in skill points wasn't all that difficult even by 5th or 6th level. Base skill +8, stat bonus +3, Synergy bonus +2, and that's without any feats, racial bonuses, magical buffs or anything. The untrained guy is about +3 and trained guy is +13. A ten point spread is already miles apart.

I'm all for making the difference between the floor and the roof a bit smaller. You retain the differences and file off the extremes.