D&D 5E Is 5E Special

[MockingBird]

On the point of teaching children 5e. My family game has two 8 yr Olds and they are having no trouble at all learning the game, they've taken it in quite well, better than I expected honestly.
I'm not sure how well they would have picked up 3e or 4e, I don't think they would have been able to learn them fully to a basic level to be honest. When 4e came out my college friends who played with me didn't seem to fully grasp it entirely. It seem to be off putting to them and clunky. We made it through the entirety of Keep on the Shadowfell as well as the little sample adventure in one of the core books. Once that was done they had no desire to keep playing.
I don't feel like 5e was "lucky" I think it was deliberate in its design. IMO it was successful in stream lining the game and making it easily accessible. At the time I feel like Paizo could have hit the sweet spot. They could have taken their beginner 1e box and expanded it, keeping the rules to a basic level. We had success and fun with that box. Maybe could have named it PF Basic.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Well to be honest, and not trying to be snarky, I never found the SC mechanic to click with me. I didn't need it. My players had a goal, and IMO, the fiction should get us to that goal (or not) without the artificial constraints of a SC... but that's just me.

no thats fine... TBH it is refreshing to talk about experiences and thoughts of skill challenges without feeling like a "it's just not D&D" around the corner, hearing your thoughts so far are a breath of fresh air...

TBH as much as I like them, I really think SC need work form even the last updates in 4e.

To answer your above questions...
I think sitting out should be a viable alternative but... do you give the player who sat out XP?

we went to group XP back in 3.5, so yeah. if 1 player is at the mage guild and 3 others fight the town ruffians I still split the xp 4 ways

Do they incur any negative effects (as the result of other player's actions) if they are choosing not to act?

now this depends... in the 'not even there' no... in the 'i am just following' most likely... even though you aren't helping, you still landed in the sewar with the others. I would base it on how much sense it made at the moment.

Is choosing to have only those with the best rolls a viable tactic in your opinion for PC's to tackle SC's? If not where do you draw the line?

I mean sure... if you WANT only the ranger to track you can... I think it defeats the purpose of a group activity though if everyone sits out... but I'm not going to say no. (I may depending on what is going on remind them splitting the party may not be wise, but that too is up to them)

I think the question about two players at the bar and/or the one about the mages guild is a little absurd and not addressing my point of a character present in a specific skill challenge (just like the combat example you presented) and choosing not to act or participate, if you're not involved in the SC then of course you aren't rolling initiative, taking actions... or receiving XP.

right, but since you mentioned 'around the table' that was why I asked that. And I do agree it would be quite absurd to have it happen most times.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The problem is when the party, employing the viable tactic above, then makes the next logical leap to... only those with the best skills should make rolls... and why shouldn't they arrive at this conclusion if choosing not to act is a viable tactic?

it again depends... that makes sense if the challenge is "track the druid through the woods" for the other players to say "hey, the ranger is the one that knows how to track we will follow him" but even then I could think of things I as a non tracking non ranger might want to add. however "find the runaway boy in the town" I can't imagine a way that having more searchers isn't better.

in general i rarely (but not never) saw players make a tactic that was 100% out of game with no in game reason.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

The problem is when the party, employing the viable tactic above, then makes the next logical leap to... only those with the best skills should make rolls... and why shouldn't they arrive at this conclusion if choosing not to act is a viable tactic?

When a game’s fans tout it as tight and clean and that is a main selling point, it is hard to accept such exploits.

Of course people will exploit this just like they try to cheese the looser 5e rule set!

I like the DM fiat of 5e for this reason—-call it like you see it and don’t let the minutiae force your hand.

I am at once a RAI and RAW proponent. It’s clear there are things in rules that were unforeseen and unintended.

I like being able to say “no” to absurd artifacts of rules like I think this would be. I just feel more empowered to do it with 5e. But I am under no illusion that 5e doesn’t have holes!

 

[Imaro]

Because then you don't get to do anything?

I've never seen a party of 100% efficient players who would completely exclude themselves from the game for an advantage. And that wouldn't be mitigated by removing SCs, as you would then just be excluding them outside of a framework instead of in one.

It doesn't have to be 100% just enough to trivialize the majority of SC's... There are players that min-max and that's really all this is... another form of min-maxing. To think no one would do it is naive . I have seen plenty of players in a normal skill check figure out who has the best skill and make sure they roll for it, why would this be any different?

Also, that's where group challenges pick up the slack. Sometimes there's things that really do require everyone to participate, and here's the place where people have to cover one another's shortcomings.

Well we aren't really discussing group checks and they don't really address the faults in SC mechanics that would have, IMO, adversely affected resolution time and presentation in streams like CR.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I've never seen a party of 100% efficient players who would completely exclude themselves from the game for an advantage. And that wouldn't be mitigated by removing SCs, as you would then just be excluding them outside of a framework instead of in one.

yeah I am not seeing a lot of "I made a non combat character so can I go sit in the corner for the next half hour" at my tables... not even with new players (and I don't mean just 5e or 4e I mean going back to 2e)

even in deadlands when someone made a 100% non combat character (a mad scientist that was mostly theoretical) more often then not even if his character was bad at it he wanted to take actions in combat... rather then sit and do nothing.

Also, that's where group challenges pick up the slack. Sometimes there's things that really do require everyone to participate, and here's the place where people have to cover one another's shortcomings.

yes

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I like being able to say “no” to absurd artifacts of rules like I think this would be. I just feel more empowered to do it with 5e. But I am under no illusion that 5e doesn’t have holes!

where I understand teh tag line of DM empowerment was part of 5e, and I HAVE (adnausium) heard complaints when DMs do it in any edition, does not every edition of D&D make the DM the last word?

 

[Vaalingrade]

It doesn't have to be 100% just enough to trivialize the majority of SC's... There are players that min-max and that's really all this is... another form of min-maxing. To think no one would do it is naive . I have seen plenty of players in a normal skill check figure out who has the best skill and make sure they roll for it, why would this be any different?

How is it different? You remove the SC and it still happens.

But wasn't the problem that SCs forced people to participate?

At this point the problem seems to be the skill system and player expectations.

Well we aren't really discussing group checks and they don't really address the faults in SC mechanics that would have, IMO, adversely affected resolution time and presentation in streams like CR.

I AM discussing group checks, because that's the missing piece that sort of fell out of the 4e skill rules.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

So...it's true I am not immune to bias. No one is.

Except...you?

No. You made statements that came across very much as though you were unquestionably correct because you’re a teacher, as if you had no biases. Pointing that out does not imply that I have no biases.

Because that's how your reply is coming off.

I don’t see how, but if that is the case, I’m sorry.

For everyone else talking about 6 and 8 year olds playing D&D...how did it come to pass? Did you hand them the PHB and tell them to make a character, and they made an accurate one ready to go at the table? Did someone else make the character for them, and all they had to do was engage with their imaginations and remember to "roll high?" During play, did someone (who has cognitive abilities above the average 8 year old) do the heavy lifting when it came time to engage with some of the game's more demanding aspects?

What demanding aspects? 5e involves addition and comparisons of numbers to see which is higher. I helped my niblings as much as I helped my 40 year old sister, in making a character and I’m playing the game.

It's easy to balance fighters with wizards when fighters have spell-like abilities, and the same number of them as wizards have spells.

But fighter powers are not like wizard powers. This is the frustrating thing in these discussions.

Taunting someone and smacking them, with an ongoing rider that you hurt them more if they ignore you next round, is not remotely comparable to creating a wall of fire, or a ball of lightning that you can move on subsequent turns and that hurts anyone near it, etc, both of which are very different from bard powers that can do things like dominate a creature’s mind and make them attack their Allie’s or the Assassin’s power to become someone’s shadow and move with them and hit them for extra damage while riding thier shadow.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

where I understand teh tag line of DM empowerment was part of 5e, and I HAVE (adnausium) heard complaints when DMs do it in any edition, does not every edition of D&D make the DM the last word?

Sure. However, I think 4e’s strength was built on things working tightly together and that most fans expected to do so by the book. If that is not the way it was I will listen to alternative experiences.

Most criticisms of 5e being too loose must be viewed in light of purportedly tighter rules and what they solve.

For me, they are not a panacea of clarity if they don’t make sense. They may fit well together but them “working” is more important to me than consistency that does not work.

For me this is just one of those cases. I think the space that 5e affords is part of its popularity. I have had some issues with it from time to time (like with stealth) but it’s at a good point for our group now.