D&D 5E (2014) 5E low level monster skill checks

[Yaarel]

I wish skills and combat used the same 5e math.

 

[robus]

I wish skills and combat used the same 5e math.

Don't they? Isn't a melee attack simply a strength check with proficiency (if you're proficient with that type of weapon) AC is simply another name for DC (because it's associated with a particular target and not generally set by the DM).

 

[robus]

Tl;dr: the skill scores of MM monsters (mainly their Athletics and Stealth, but also Perception) is downright pathetic.

Live by bounded accuracy, die by bounded accuracy.

You're not wrong of course. But bounded accuracy does really compress the range of numbers. Of course we're only rolling dice if there's uncertainty? If you think it's certain that the creature can remain hidden from the party then why roll the dice?

 

[Krachek]

Posters here seem to agree that PCs should be more powerful than ordinary folk in a typical campaign world. So I don't think it is right to raise the spectre of wanting them to be "more casual people". Rather I think the concern is - how reliably should PC skill checks (active, passive or contest) defeat monster capabilities? With that in mind, I'd want to give skills to monsters, before I changed Expertise or nerfed optimal builds.

A wolf gives a good idea how well this plays out. It has proficiency in perception and gets advantage on top of that, whenever relying on hearing or smell. A ranger with proficiency in stealth and prioritising Dex (say +4?) at level 4 might have +6. Stack in Pass Without Trace (2nd level spell, +10), and the wolf might (rarely) still detect the ranger. Stack in Guidance or Bardic Inspiration and the wolf might be unable to detect the ranger. Still, this is a CR 1/4 monster and the party have thrown in a few resources.

On the other hand, most creatures don't have proficiency in a wide range of skills that to me feel as if they should be common - such as athletics - far less advantage with them! So you can see how without proficiency a party can just perma-beat many creatures, even in tier 1.

With your Ranger example, giving more bonus to monsters won’t help that much.
Reviewing all monsters is a big task, be sure it will really help your cause.

I would prefer give abilities to monsters, like tremorsense, blindsight, detect lie, pass without trace, etc

 

[iserith]

With your Ranger example, giving more bonus to monsters won’t help that much.
Reviewing all monsters is a big task, be sure it will really help your cause.

I would prefer give abilities to monsters, like tremorsense, blindsight, detect lie, pass without trace, etc

Same. If for a particular challenge, I want these monsters right here to be really good at grappling, then I'll just add a trait that makes them good at grappling. Or give them keen senses because reasons. In a recent Eberron adventure, I used this for example: "Grapple-Prone (Reaction). If an attempt to grapple the owlbear super-soldier fails, the attacker is instead grappled by the owlbear super-soldier (escape DC 17)." So yeah, you go right on ahead and try to grapple Agent Hootsworth.

Add the trait, telegraph the change so the players aren't blindsided, and off we go. Saves from having to make a blanket rules change.

 

[CapnZapp]

Live by bounded accuracy, die by bounded accuracy.

You're not wrong of course. But bounded accuracy does really compress the range of numbers. Of course we're only rolling dice if there's uncertainty? If you think it's certain that the creature can remain hidden from the party then why roll the dice?

Pathetic skill scores has nothing to do with bounded accuracy. Thx

 

[robus]

Pathetic skill scores has nothing to do with bounded accuracy. Thx

5e is all about keeping the numbers for ability checks (of which attacks are subset) to within a limited range. So if the range of possible skill scores is not constrained by the concept of bounded accuracy then I guess I'm really confused!

 

[BookBarbarian]

I don't expect low CR Monsters to challenge high level PCs the same way they challenged them back when they were low level PCs. Though I do like that they can still represent a threat, especially in numbers.

I will however take an existing statblock and modify it to present the challenge I want to present to the party.

 

[Nebulous]

If I think a monster "should" be good at a particular skill, I'll usually double what the book says and give it advantage.

 

[Nebulous]

How do monsters even use the Intimidate skill? Is that really worth an action or better to just ATTACK and let that be intimidating Like a bugbear chief has intimidate +2. I can't remember ever using these skills