D&D 5E D&D Next playtest post mortem by Mike Mearls and Rodney Thompson. From seven years ago.

[ersatzphil]

The core game of 5e already gives you guidelines for using other Ability Score modifiers to apply to skill rolls when appropriate. As we've seen in the playtest for D&D One, attack rolls and skill rolls are both going to be considered "Tests" with the same rules. Why not apply this to your game right now - especially when it allows a player to make the character they envision and everyone has more fun?

I've always been fond of that particular rule variant - '...want to show off your slick breakdancing skills? Give me a dexterity plus performance check!' - but it's never done anything but confuse the heck out of my players.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

So it's either grin and bear it, adapt it to what you want, or find another system.

Saying this in the middle of an edition change, where feedback is being requested, is really pretty wild! We'll be able to say whether you're right or wrong when 6E/1D&D actually comes out. But what a time to claim that.

Everything that's wrong with 5E's Fighter is fixable, frankly. It's just not been done so far. I'll be very interested to see what 1D&D does.

Jeremy Crawford isn't going to come to your table to stop you.

Sure, but digital tools won't work for you, for example, and imho they and the general level of support are some of the main reason to run D&D. Even with the powerful building options in Beyond (which are hard work to use), you can't do what you're suggesting. But I'm not asking for anything as extreme as "charisma-based Fighter", I'm just suggesting the next edition of D&D needs to learn from 5E's mistakes (this is a post-mortem of the previous playtest after all), and particularly avoid the "apology edition" stuff which is clearly no longer needed.

The DM certainly has responsibility if they choose to run 5e to make it the game the group wants. Otherwise, it's yelling at clouds.

This is such a fundamentally unfair claim that it goes past insulting/demeaning and into just amusing. The idea that because a DM doesn't make wild house rules and basically re-write the game in a way incompatible with existing material, they're "yelling at clouds" to voice concerns is just truly out there.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I've always been fond of that particular rule variant - '...want to show off your slick breakdancing skills? Give me a dexterity plus performance check!' - but it's never done anything but confuse the heck out of my players.

Same but I think part of the problem is it's a contradiction. The game wildly out of its way to hard-link certain stats and skills. Aren't there even a couple of subclass features which allow you to use a skill with a non-standard stat?

They should have never done that. They should from the start said it's stat mod + skill prof, ask you DM which combo to run, here are the defaults. But was never the approach and the optional approach in the DMG was clearly not seriously considered.

 

[Minigiant]

don't see why. Charisma to attack can represent catching an opponent off-guard or distracting them with flourishes and fake-outs.

The core game of 5e already gives you guidelines for using other Ability Score modifiers to apply to skill rolls when appropriate. As we've seen in the playtest for D&D One, attack rolls and skill rolls are both going to be considered "Tests" with the same rules. Why not apply this to your game right now - especially when it allows a player to make the character they envision and everyone has more fun?
After all, the only people who will be complaining are the dead NPCs.

Allowing to attack with Charisma is a large mechanical boost in strength for Fighters over other builds. It is not expected by most players that a DM would allow it without massive cost.

There was an expectation the DMs would houserule subclasses and feats for players that way. But it never materialized in the community.

 

[ersatzphil]

Same but I think part of the problem is it's a contradiction. The game wildly out of its way to hard-link certain stats and skills. Aren't there even a couple of subclass features which allow you to use a skill with a non-standard stat?

They should have never done that. They should from the start said it's stat mod + skill prof, ask you DM which combo to run, here are the defaults. But was never the approach and the optional approach in the DMG was clearly not seriously considered.

Agreed. I kind of think it feels natural to me - and weird to even my grognard players - because it was normalized to me in WoD games, which no one at either of my tables got into. Rolling appearance plus academics to blend in as a student on campus? Totally normal in my mind, but alien to my players.

 

[James Gasik]

That's because D&D has always emphasized one path to being good at something. Let's say you want to be the master of, oh, I don't know, climbing. You go "aha, obviously Dexterity is the most important thing here!"

But if your DM happens to be a free climber, and they say "well actually, you need Strength to be a good climber", you're going to feel put out.

And if, over the course of a game, you're asked to make Intelligence + Athletics to plan out a climb, Wisdom + Athletics to find handholds or jumps you can make, Strength + Athletics to make leaps of faith, etc. etc., you're going to question if your character is really all that good at climbing in the first place!

Because D&D is a game that rewards specialization over generalization, and you simply can't have all your ability scores be good. Something will pretty much always be inferior.

Now, in the long run, proficiency matters more than ability, but in most levels of play, proficiency is a small bonus, and you get more from your talent (ie, ability scores) than you do from your experience.

 

[Retreater]

Saying this in the middle of an edition change, where feedback is being requested, is really pretty wild! We'll be able to say whether you're right or wrong when 6E/1D&D actually comes out. But what a time to claim that.

This is exactly the time to say it, because 5.0e is going to be dead in 2024. You're not going to be changing 5.0e (the 2014 edition).
Certainly you can have a say in the development of 6E/1D&D. That is not the same as what was published in 2014 - and the most recent complete edition of D&D we currently have.

Sure, but digital tools won't work for you, for example, and imho they and the general level of support are some of the main reason to run D&D. Even with the powerful building options in Beyond (which are hard work to use), you can't do what you're suggesting.

I know that you can make an attack come off of whatever ability score you want with Roll20's character sheet.
If not, there are ways around it. If you want attacks to be based off of proficiency and Intelligence, then just have the character hit the button for Arcana and you're good to go. It's the same modifiers.
But yeah, if you're going to be fiddling with the rules don't be surprised when the code doesn't work 100%. But finding a quick fix isn't difficult.

This is such a fundamentally unfair claim that it goes past insulting/demeaning and into just amusing. The idea that because a DM doesn't make wild house rules and basically re-write the game in a way incompatible with existing material, they're "yelling at clouds" to voice concerns is just truly out there.

If you don't like something, figure out how to fix it or avoid it (play something else). Life's too short to play games you don't like. I dunno, that's all I can say.

 

[Imaro]

I don't see why. Charisma to attack can represent catching an opponent off-guard or distracting them with flourishes and fake-outs.

The core game of 5e already gives you guidelines for using other Ability Score modifiers to apply to skill rolls when appropriate. As we've seen in the playtest for D&D One, attack rolls and skill rolls are both going to be considered "Tests" with the same rules. Why not apply this to your game right now - especially when it allows a player to make the character they envision and everyone has more fun?
After all, the only people who will be complaining are the dead NPCs.

I do not want D&D to go in this as a general direction at all. As a special ability, perhaps for fighters only, because their understanding of combat is just that nuanced and complete it would be great however.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

And if, over the course of a game, you're asked to make Intelligence + Athletics to plan out a climb, Wisdom + Athletics to find handholds or jumps you can make, Strength + Athletics to make leaps of faith, etc. etc., you're going to question if your character is really all that good at climbing in the first place!

You wouldn't question that if the skill was the majority of the modifier to the point where the stat wasn't a huge deal.

Which is true in plenty of games, including at the very least 3E D&D.

A lot of the problem is, as you point out, at lower levels, Proficiency ain't much. If Proficiency was larger, I don't think this issue would be as severe.

 

[Oofta]

Saying this in the middle of an edition change, where feedback is being requested, is really pretty wild! We'll be able to say whether you're right or wrong when 6E/1D&D actually comes out. But what a time to claim that.

Everything that's wrong with 5E's Fighter is fixable, frankly. It's just not been done so far. I'll be very interested to see what 1D&D does.

Sure, but digital tools won't work for you, for example, and imho they and the general level of support are some of the main reason to run D&D. Even with the powerful building options in Beyond (which are hard work to use), you can't do what you're suggesting. But I'm not asking for anything as extreme as "charisma-based Fighter", I'm just suggesting the next edition of D&D needs to learn from 5E's mistakes (this is a post-mortem of the previous playtest after all), and particularly avoid the "apology edition" stuff which is clearly no longer needed.

This is such a fundamentally unfair claim that it goes past insulting/demeaning and into just amusing. The idea that because a DM doesn't make wild house rules and basically re-write the game in a way incompatible with existing material, they're "yelling at clouds" to voice concerns is just truly out there.

I have very few house rules, but I also accept the game for what it is. Yelling at the clouds - or more specifically - yelling on forums isn't going to change the game. The video pointed out several aspects of that. The forums don't reflect general opinion very well, there's no way that any edition can be the favorite edition of everyone and sometimes all you can hope for as a designer is that the game is good enough for people to enjoy. If it's not, there are other editions and other games.

That's not telling people that they can't be dissatisfied or voice their opinion (just like I'm going to voice my opinion even if it happens to be in support of the current rules), it's just acknowledging reality. Or as the saying goes "Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change that which I can and the wisdom to know the difference." I accept that I cannot change the core rules with anything I say on these forums*. I can make minor tweaks and how I run the game. I can add house rules to to make the game fun for me and my players. I also accept that I'm not the right DM for every player.

So right now we have an opportunity to help shape the next version of the game. I'm going to thoroughly read the playtest materials for the next release and provide feedback, that's about all I can do to change the direction of the core game. Until then I'll do the best I can with what I have and if I ever decide it no longer works for me and my group I'll investigate a different edition, 3PP materials (there's a ton), or a different game.