D&D 5E 5E low level monster skill checks

[robus]

An amazing feature for an RPG ruleset would be a slider that lets you move along the spectrum of Realistic to Fantastic and beyond, automatically adjusting stat blocks etc. to suit each group's tastes.

I bet something like that could be done, though obviously it would be much easier digitally than in a printed medium.

Err, I think that’s called a DM?

 

[Garthanos]

Monsters are meant to fail and die.
Pc are heroes. They are meant to have success most of the time.

Sure totally agree with that
But if I am now fighting 20 orcs instead of 5 the fact that they are interfering with my attacks against their allies much better and my odds are similar to what they used to be doesn't bother me much. (especially when I can still drive them off killing them) - I like swarm mechanics big time.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Yes, and parties are invariably led by a high-Wisdom Perception-trained character, since players are not stupid.

So the DC monsters need to beat is 16 or 17. At first level.

Good luck finding a monster described as "super sneaky" that does not stand an overwhelming chance of failing miserably at doing the one thing it's there for: executing an ambush of the PCs...

About the stealthiest MM monster I could find at CR 2 or lower was the Shadow and its +6 modifier. That still means it fails more than half the time against a zero xp character. And its a frikkin' shadow. And even that assumes the party isn't bringing a lantern.

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

Are you remembering to impose disadvantage in dim light? That's -5 to passives.

 

[Ashrym]

Are you remembering to impose disadvantage in dim light? That's -5 to passives.

It affects the PC's and NPC's alike a lot of the time. Parties tend to also get hampered by armor causing disadvantage on the stealth check so the armored guys are bringing down the group check, or the stealthy guys are separating to split up the group.

Characters distracted by other activities such as tracking, foraging, mapping, etc are also denied their passive perception checks. That's one of the pluses of a ranger -- they can do those and still remain alert.

Or both parties see the lanterns from far away. Or there is no place to actually hide. There can be quite a bit of consideration going into determining surprise.

 

[clearstream]

With your Ranger example, giving more bonus to monsters won’t help that much.

Proficiency and advantage makes a big difference in my campaign.

Reviewing all monsters is a big task, be sure it will really help your cause.

For me, there was no need to do them all at once. Only those I was about to use.

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

There is value in those rules, and we are not faced with a dichotomy. Can you explain why abilities would always be better?

 

[clearstream]

I can clarify what I mean by "big difference". It's not about one specific orc succeeding one time (which could be covered by making that one orc special as suggested). It is about what happens across multiple orcs and other such creatures on the many occasions the Shield Master shoves them.

I find it plausible and workable to use proficiency as a tool across multiple cases. For me, that was made easier because in Fantasy Grounds I can just edit the base creature and all instances inherit the change.

Not without exception, but generally, it is proficiency rather than a special ability that is doing what I want in this fashion. I could no doubt think of cases where an ability is better, such as when I want an absolute rather than stochastic consequence.

 

[CapnZapp]

If I plop down a lurking monster, I do so because I want to showcase it's awesome ambush routine or whatever. Not to see it being instagibbed before it can act.

So.

Assume at least one party member rolls high. Doesn't have to be the perceptive Wisdom character, and so let's not assume DC 27 for the Stealth attempt.

But let's say DC 20.

Now, I need my lurkers to actually be lurky. That means they should succeed more often than not; let's say at least a 60% success rate.

Which brings us right back to the +12 from earlier.

Back then I kind of made it up. Now I realize I was more right than I thought.

Tldr a lurking monster that's supposed to lurk a 1st level party should have closer to +12 Stealth than a pathetic +3.

 

[CapnZapp]

Now I know the devs thought about this another way - they wanted to coddle the players by saying, if you roll high you should likely succeed no matter what.

A +3 modifier makes "sense" if the purpose is for a dimwitted Fighter to defeat it when rolling high. Say you roll 16 and have a -1 modifier.

Now that +3 score is sufficiently low to give the fighter more than a 50% shot at success.

However I loathe and despise that approach. If I want clumsy monsters that are spotted a mile away, I'll use Ogres or something.

 

[CapnZapp]

When I use a lurking monster I need it to lurk.

Not against half-blind Commoners or Fighters, but against parties of adventurers.

And they are (assuming the players know what they're doing) led by someone with a high Perception.

AND the fact that party rolls 4-5 times and picks the best result.

THAT'S what the lurking monster needs to beat.

Anything less is just babysitting the players and I won't have it.

 

[clearstream]

"So the DC monsters need to beat is 16 or 17. At first level."

Huh?

Point buy and str array gives you a 17 cap on abilities at 1st level. For +3.
Proficiency is +2.

That is passive percrption of 15 assuming that's the lead guy at first level.

So, a wolf being sneaky needs to roll 15 - not 16-17 - since contests like this have ties go to the prior status- the wolf was unseen before the check, so tie does not reveal the wolf.

With stealth +4 that's z toll of 11 needed do 50/50.


Flip the situation, PCs sneak up on wolf. Wolf gets advantage due to keen senses and so has passive per of 18.


That's gonna require that first level sneaker with +5 net bonus yo roll 13+. So, a little tougher.

Now, the outlier might be s variant human taking like observant at first or one of the dex+1 to get to 18 dex. But nowxwexare into very specific outliers, not routine play.


By tier-2 and lateer tier-1 with magic, this changes of course.

With experienced players interested in crunch, I would see PC specialisation and stacked buffs. Ignoring Variant Human, one might see +3 stat +2 prof +2 guidance +4 inspiration +advantage from help. Level 1 flies by so the bulk of play could assume expertise, observer etc. Agreed not a flat, always on +12 as you say, but much higher as experienced at the table than one might guess.

I found that giving most monsters proficiencies, and in a few cases special abilities, worked well across a two year campaign.

I also changed it so that in most cases only the character with the highest score rolled. And instead of giving advantage, the helper rolled too (dilutes buffs). Although that might seem pronounced, many cases (such as the notorious shove) are unchanged. It catches some of the more egregious situations.