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

[Oofta]

What I'm saying is that the book isn't perfect. But it does clearly state in multiple places that most groups use a mix of styles I disagree with the whole "goal and approach" as being the driving force behind all interaction between DM and players. Much like it says in the DMG section on traps, it's the characters, not the players that are interfacing with the world and it's traps.

I'm saying that one person's "clear reading" is another person's "that's an interesting take on it, but I think you're reading too much into general advice and you seemed to skip this and ignore that". Which is fine. Different strokes for different folks.

But if "goal and approach", broadcasting traps, relying on player knowledge instead of character knowledge was the de facto standard of play then I missed that errata. The DMG directly contradicts it*. The mods don't mention it or even really support it. The streamed games by the likes of Chris Perkins and Matt Mercer don't use it religiously. Much like it mentions in the PHB where it's talking about whether you speak in character or using third person that most people use a mix, they seem to use a mix of styles depending on the situation. I do the same. Doing persuasion? You need to at least tell me what you're talking about. Opening a lock? In most cases, just roll a die. Which works for me and may not work for anyone else.

I don't think anything is self evident other than different people have different styles.

*For most people the newer book is considered more accurate representation of what the rules are, the DMG was published several months after the PHB.

 

[S'mon]

What I'm saying is that the book isn't perfect. But it does clearly state in multiple places that most groups use a mix of styles I disagree with the whole "goal and approach" as being the driving force behind all interaction between DM and players. Much like it says in the DMG section on traps, it's the characters, not the players that are interfacing with the world and it's traps.

I'm saying that one person's "clear reading" is another person's "that's an interesting take on it, but I think you're reading too much into general advice and you seemed to skip this and ignore that". Which is fine. Different strokes for different folks.

But if "goal and approach", broadcasting traps, relying on player knowledge instead of character knowledge was the de facto standard of play then I missed that errata. The DMG directly contradicts it*. The mods don't mention it or even really support it. The streamed games by the likes of Chris Perkins and Matt Mercer don't use it religiously. Much like it mentions in the PHB where it's talking about whether you speak in character or using third person that most people use a mix, they seem to use a mix of styles depending on the situation. I do the same. Doing persuasion? You need to at least tell me what you're talking about. Opening a lock? In most cases, just roll a die. Which works for me and may not work for anyone else.

I don't think anything is self evident other than different people have different styles.

*For most people the newer book is considered more accurate representation of what the rules are, the DMG was published several months after the PHB.

Yes that fits my impression. I don't see a coherent approach with 'mistakes', I see much more of a mish-mash and a general attitude of "do what works for you".

 

[iserith]

Yes that fits my impression. I don't see a coherent approach with 'mistakes', I see much more of a mish-mash and a general attitude of "do what works for you".

I prefer "This book's full of mistakes, so flumph it, do what works for you because you're going to do that even if it wasn't."

 

[clearstream]

I’ll say again that the first step in any of these contests is being overlooked. First the DM has to determine whether the outcome is uncertain. When shoving for example, if the creature is larger than the PC then I’ll either say that the attempt fails outright or give the creature advantage to resist the shove.

We can’t go straight to the dice to resolve every action (even in combat). Garbage in: Garbage out.

Monster proficiencies will apply consistently across a wide range of circumstances, whenever we decide to roll.

Advantage is another useful tool. IIRC a character can't shove something two sizes bigger. We might decide to give things one size bigger advantage. That leaves a burly orc to rely on Athletics (or lack thereof.) I think a character with Shield Master will find it jarring to be regularly denied a roll to shove creatures like orcs in combat. Yet as DM I think in most cases a combat will epitomise a case in which there should be a chance and consequence of failure.

This isn't a dichotomy. Monster skill levels can be too low and I can do the things you describe. The truth of one doesn't entail the falsehood of the other.

 

[S'mon]

Advantage for monsters works great to create a feel of versimilitude while still enabling focused PCs to show off their powers. The STR 19 Ogre with Advantage on grapple rolls vs human sized foes feels tough, and the STR 8 Rogue probably shouldn't bother trying to shove or trip it, but the Raging STR 20 Barbarian PC is going to do a lot better.

This contrasts with 3e's (AIR) +4 to Grapple per size category, which made big monsters unbeatable even by focused PCs. IMO that was poor design.

Likewise, if an ambush predator is stalking I'm very likely to give it advantage on Stealth roll - it's unlikely to get a '4' but the PP-focused Rogue is still likely to spot it.

 

[Ashrym]

Okay, so a long walk-through of the rules, but what is the relevance to the discussion at hand.

Understanding the rules is important in understanding how to apply them.

Do you think a monster described as lurky should have a good chance of successfully ambushing a party?

I do not. Lurky is fluff, which doesn't dictate mechanics.

If we look at a monster the burrows in the ground and hides in ambush as lurky then PC's automatically fail any check that relies on sight because they cannot see it. That's the relevant rule to such a lurky creature. It's from the heavily obscured rule equals blind to that creature equals auto-fail those checks. A bonus to an auto-fail roll is irrelevant.

When checks are made (hearing it attack or noticing it burrowing out of the ground) doesn't change the behavior. It's already lurked and tried to ambush. The only difference is a higher perception enables reacting to the lurking ambush more effectively by not being surprised when it happens. Being attacked while surprised or being attacked while not being surprised is still being attacked from ambush or lurking.

The bottom line is 5e based ability checks off a d20 roll with no bonuses. If a monster is meant to have a bonus it would be there. Justifying the bonuses are incorrect based on description assumes an error not listed in the errata and would change some of the monsters' rules going from the basic rules or SRD to the full monster manual based on fluff that's more filled out in the MM but not the others. It makes no sense to do that,

So the ankheg example...

Ankhegs detect prey via tremor sense. The PC's fail stealth regardless of bonus unless they are flying or something. Tha ankhegs have total cover and concealment in the ground. The PC's fail any ability checks based on sight automatically regardless of bonus.

Ankhegs are lurking because that is their behavior. They have no bonus to stealth because that's typical of most monsters, including commoners and animals on whom they might prey (who have a small bonus to perception at best).

The party nears the ankhegs (who are totally obscured) and the DM determines if there is any surprise. The ankhegs are not surprised (tremor sense). The DM applies passive perception to the party members. Ankhegs are CR2 so going with 11th level characters a CR2 ankheg is not particularly challenging. The typical STR fighter, WIS cleric, and DEX rogue in my table above can add an INT wizard. Wizards don't get perception as a class proficiency and it's not included in recommended or typical backgrounds. The wizard also prioritizes INT, CON, DEX, and possibly CHA (enchanters) over WIS.

So passive perceptions are 20, 16, 15, and maybe 12. The rogue isn't surprised, the fighter and cleric might be surprised but are more often not, and the wizard has a solid chance of being surprised. The ankhegs could roll a 1 on stealth, fail to surprise anyone, and would still be lurking in ambush. The only difference perception makes is whether all of the party can act in the first round if the encounter. Give the ankhegs +20 stealth and the only difference it's going to make is the party doesn't act in the first round of combat.

Perception isn't some miracle skill that changed the auto-fail rule on visual checks or somehow prevents the ankhegs from lurking underground.

 

[Ashrym]

Yeah, I'm pretty familiar with that section on traps. As I've discussed on the forum before, there are several parts of the DMG that I find to be sloppily written and inconsistent with the language of the rules for passive checks or ability checks in general. This is one of them. It's honestly like someone else wrote them with a totally different understanding of how the game works that was particularly influenced by their experience with D&D 4e.

For example, in addition to what you point out, it has a line that says "A character actively looking for a trap can attempt a Wisdom (Perception) check against the trap's DC. But characters don't make checks. It says the same thing with regard to the character attempting an Intelligence (Arcana) check to detect or disarm a magical trap and in a couple other places I've noticed in the DMG. It's conflating actions and ability checks. Lost Mine of Phandelver has some similar language and I do wonder if there was some editing problem around that time of the game's production. Because if you read the D&D 4e Rules Compendium, the language in the skills section is very much like "Characters using the X skill..." Further, if you compare the rules for passive checks in D&D 5e and D&D 4e, the latter specifically says "When creatures aren't actively using a skill..." a passive check comes into play. D&D 5e says nothing like that in the rules for passive checks. So the section on traps in the DMG is a mess. I'm not surprise they revisited it in Xanathar's.

So, while yes it does say that in the DMG, and a game could be run just fine that way (though I argue you do lose something in the doing and in some ways it leads to "gotchas"), it's so inconsistent with the rules on passive checks in D&D 5e (and so consistent with the rules in D&D 4e) that I assume it's an error on the DMG writer's part.

Whether a character performs an action to make a check or simply makes a check is just debating semantics. It's clearly the same thing. It also tends to fit into the "plain reading" method.

I don't think it makes sense to assume an error in the rules as opposed to accepting it's the two are not incongruous.

The 5e rules on passive checks don't need to repeat what I quoted in multiple locations to be correct. The passage I quoted show the rule exists. Believing it is an error because of an absence of confirmation in another section when there's no contradiction either doesn't create contradiction to indicate an error.

Passive checks are just more closely related to their roots in 4e than you realize. I don't think there's anything wrong with the way you play. I just think it's the old style and isn't current. Deciding the rules I quoted from the books are simply errors doesn't change that. Otherwise errata should have included it, which it does no (yet anyway). Until such a time as errata shows a correction, the rule quoted is valid.

 

[iserith]

Whether a character performs an action to make a check or simply makes a check is just debating semantics. It's clearly the same thing. It also tends to fit into the "plain reading" method.

That's really not the case. That an ability check was made necessarily means that a task has been attempted. An action, however, may not require an ability check. They are NOT the same thing. Task =/= ability check. It is an important distinction in this game, not merely "semantics."

I don't think it makes sense to assume an error in the rules as opposed to accepting it's the two are not incongruous.

The 5e rules on passive checks don't need to repeat what I quoted in multiple locations to be correct. The passage I quoted show the rule exists. Believing it is an error because of an absence of confirmation in another section when there's no contradiction either doesn't create contradiction to indicate an error.

Given that humans wrote it and the mere existence of errata proves they made multiple errors already, I'm going with an error on this one. It's sloppily written. This section conflates key concepts fundamental to the game design and treats it as if it was the previous edition. Whoever wrote that was thinking of how they run a different game. At least, that's my assertion based on my understanding of all the other rules.

Passive checks are just more closely related to their roots in 4e than you realize. I don't think there's anything wrong with the way you play. I just think it's the old style and isn't current. Deciding the rules I quoted from the books are simply errors doesn't change that. Otherwise errata should have included it, which it does no (yet anyway). Until such a time as errata shows a correction, the rule quoted is valid.

Passive checks as a concept do have roots in D&D 4e and the rules for passive checks in D&D 4e were largely based on D&D 3.Xe and, later, D&D 4e's "Take 10." There is no such mechanic in D&D 5e. I'm not playing "the old style." I'm using an approach lifted straight out of the rules. When I run D&D 4e, I run passive checks like those rules say to do. When I run D&D 5e, I run it the way the D&D 5e books say to do, discounting what I think are obvious errors in the traps section of the DMG.

And to be clear, I'm not one of these D&D 4e haters that haunt the forums. It's a game I really like and still play and I know it well. If you haven't already, I encourage you to read the D&D 4e Rule Compendium section on passive checks and then re-read the D&D 5e section on passive checks and tell me if you see the same differences I do, then examine the section on traps in the D&D 5e DMG, and tell me if said section fits more with D&D 4e or D&D 5e based on the rules for passive checks in the two separate, distinct games. Then think about my assertion about the person writing it just conflating the two mechanics from different editions as they opined on how to present and resolve traps. If you're still not convinced, fair enough, we can just disagree on this.

That it has not been corrected doesn't mean it's not incorrect, as further evidenced by errata being released more than once on the same products.

 

[Ashrym]

That's really not the case. That an ability check was made necessarily means that a task has been attempted. An action, however, may not require an ability check. They are NOT the same thing. Task =/= ability check. It is an important distinction in this game, not merely "semantics."



Given that humans wrote it and the mere existence of errata proves they made multiple errors already, I'm going with an error on this one. It's sloppily written. This section conflates key concepts fundamental to the game design and treats it as if it was the previous edition. Whoever wrote that was thinking of how they run a different game. At least, that's my assertion based on my understanding of all the other rules.



Passive checks as a concept do have roots in D&D 4e and the rules for passive checks in D&D 4e were largely based on D&D 3.Xe and, later, D&D 4e's "Take 10." There is no such mechanic in D&D 5e. I'm not playing "the old style." I'm using an approach lifted straight out of the rules. When I run D&D 4e, I run passive checks like those rules say to do. When I run D&D 5e, I run it the way the D&D 5e books say to do, discounting what I think are obvious errors in the traps section of the DMG.

And to be clear, I'm not one of these D&D 4e haters that haunt the forums. It's a game I really like and still play and I know it well. If you haven't already, I encourage you to read the D&D 4e Rule Compendium section on passive checks and then re-read the D&D 5e section on passive checks and tell me if you see the same differences I do, then examine the section on traps in the D&D 5e DMG, and tell me if said section fits more with D&D 4e or D&D 5e based on the rules for passive checks in the two separate, distinct games. Then think about my assertion about the person writing it just conflating the two mechanics from different editions as they opined on how to present and resolve traps. If you're still not convinced, fair enough, we can just disagree on this.

That it has not been corrected doesn't mean it's not incorrect, as further evidenced by errata being released more than once on the same products.

So you are playing lifting straight from the rules except the ones you state are errors? Lack of errata certainly doesn't prove an error exists based on the assumption the error does exist and the errata will appear someday, lol.

I'll say the reason you see that language is because it's common for players to use "I'll roll" and accepted to the point even the writers do it.

I'll let you get back to your games, anyway. It's been interesting. Thanks for your take on it.

 

[iserith]

So you are playing lifting straight from the rules except the ones you state are errors?

Yes. Those rules in particular are inconsistent with how to play the game as the rules lay out. They appear to be in error in my view.

Lack of errata certainly doesn't prove an error exists based on the assumption the error does exist and the errata will appear someday, lol.

My only assertion is that the books contain mistakes. They aren't perfect and errata is proof that they contain mistakes. It doesn't mean I'm right about the trap section, but that the errata so far does not contain corrections for what I say are errors is also not proof I'm wrong.

I'll say the reason you see that language is because it's common for players to use "I'll roll" and accepted to the point even the writers do it.

Yes, it's common for people to play that way. But I don't think it's well supported in the D&D 5e rules. That's not a criticism of playing that way, just a statement that the approach is better supported in previous editions of the game as I see it. When I play D&D 4e, where it actually says players will often initiate skill checks by asking to make one and the DM "almost always say 'Yes," that's how I play it. But it doesn't say that in D&D 5e, so I don't.

I'll let you get back to your games, anyway. It's been interesting. Thanks for your take on it.

Still interested in your comparison of the passive checks rules in D&D 4e and D&D 5e if you ever have a chance. Feel free to PM me.