D&D 5E How do you feel about games without Feats and Multiclassing?

[Stattick]

I am saying nothing whatsoever about any of the rules in the game regarding what happens when a '20' gets rolled. I used the TERM 'Nat 20' (a term that does not actually exist in the 5E rules) to state actually rolling a '20' on the d20 die. Any additional rules people are implying from that is entirely on them.

Natural 20 is synonymous with Critical Hit, and has been for a very long time. You can pretend otherwise if you want, but it doesn't make it so.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Natural 20 is synonymous with Critical Hit, and has been for a very long time. You can pretend otherwise if you want, but it doesn't make it so.

And my original statement merely said that if you rolled a 20 and subtracted 4 points from it that you would succeed on a DC 15 check. And none of the other implications about what the term 'Nat 20' implies in some people were even necessary to understand that, so what exactly was the point in bringing it up and arguing about it?

You all know the rules of the game and can describe them here. Very good.

 

[Parmandur]

'Nat 20' is shorthand for the die roll coming up '20' rather than getting to 20 after modifiers. There is nothing in the 5E rules with the terms 'Nat 20' or 'Natural 20' for attack rolls that cause critical hits or auto-success on skill checks. So it's not that that's not how the rules work... it's that those rules you're insinuating don't actually exist.

However, if you roll a 20 on the die and then subtract 4 points for your STR modifier... you complete a DC 15 check. Which is exactly as I said.

Ah, my bad, I misread you and thought you had said a DC 20, which is literally impossible with a negative modifier.

As far as the rare, Herculean feat of strength to pass a d15 by a weak character...the rolls are not to simulate reality, but narrative.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Whatdayamean? That a supposed peak human with a 20 STR is only 5 ability modifier points better than a supposed average 10 STR person with +0 (resulting in merely a +25% bonus in capability)... isn't truly representative of the difference in human build and action? Get outta town!

And to think... that supposed peak human with the 20 STR can attempt basic DC 10 STR checks and fail 20% of the time by rolling 1s, 2,s 3,s and 4s. Whereas even humans with a STR of 3 (-4) can still sometimes complete a DC 15 task by rolling a Nat 20.

It's almost like game mechanics don't actually represent anything real or concrete in the fiction and are there merely to give us some numbers to play the board game with! Whodathunkit!

Listen, if we're doing hyperbole, go all out:

A DC 14 Strength check can be failed by the strongest being in the universe (because with a +10 mod, they'd need to roll at least a 4), but can be passed by the weakest creature capable of exerting any force (because with a -5 they still pass if they roll a 19).

Therefore, if we take the rules literally, there is a rock somewhere that an aphid could push, but Galactus might not be able to push.

Back to semi-serious: can we just get rid of ability scores already? Skills and class features cover "what you are and aren't good at" well enough without them.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Back to semi-serious: can we just get rid of ability scores already? Skills and class features cover "what you are and aren't good at" well enough without them.

I do like ability scores, but in my homebrew TTRPG they are each a resource pool that you use to fix bad rolls (push your result up one rung on the success ladder) or use special abilities ranging from advanced skill uses, to things like activating an active defense skill check or pushing past a normal limit.

Skills are just ranks, and each rank adds a die to your dice pool.

 

[NaturalZero]

Good points. I think you got ripped off, @NaturalZero. And not to pile on, but a standing long jump with a 22 Strength would let you jump 11 feet, no roll required (PHB p.182).

I think that a lot of folks forget that in both 5e and 3.5, rolling a 1 on a skill check isn't automatic failure.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I think that a lot of folks forget that in both 5e and 3.5, rolling a 1 on a skill check isn't automatic failure.

I think that may due to how many people houserules it at some point and have done so for so long now thAt they don’t even think about it anymore.

Personally, d20 is far too swingy for me to use critical fails on a 1. In 5e I’m tempted to get rid of automatically missing on a 1 for attacks.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I like multiclassing as a way to customize my character, and I feel the tradeoff in 5e is quite balanced.
Right now I am playing a multiclass character and I love (because I really hate) the choices which class to increase next (3 classes due to roleplaying necessities).

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Listen, if we're doing hyperbole, go all out:

A DC 14 Strength check can be failed by the strongest being in the universe (because with a +10 mod, they'd need to roll at least a 4), but can be passed by the weakest creature capable of exerting any force (because with a -5 they still pass if they roll a 19).

Therefore, if we take the rules literally, there is a rock somewhere that an aphid could push, but Galactus might not be able to push.

Back to semi-serious: can we just get rid of ability scores already? Skills and class features cover "what you are and aren't good at" well enough without them.

... If you don't use the autopass rules... (Score - 5 is an auto success or if you are high enough level, proficiency lets you autopass....) Both are good and unerutilized (optional) rules.

Actually, they could be better by changing how attribute bonuses for skills work. I think just having score - 10 would be a better way to reflect bonuses to ability (skill) checks and would makesecondary stats be more important.
For attack rolls and saving throws, the current bonuses are good enough.
For initiative I am not sure. Keep it as is, would be ok, but probably initiatove as well as perception would be better as seperate stats either defined by class or allocated seperately. Maybe initiative should be a function of perceptiveness. Call it awareness or whatever. You could even argue, that the perception value is the initiative score and you just roll stealth or deception as initiative if you surprise someone... (made that up while writing).

 

[Islayre d'Argolh]

As a DM and by default, i tend to say yes to Feats and no to MC so... It's complicated ^^

I also like the aesthetics of playing only with the Basic Rules but then i use (variant human + prodigy feat) as the standard human.