D&D General What do you NOT want systems for?

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

The problem I have with set DCs is because it doesn't take into consideration the perceptive abilities of the opposition. It should be easy to sneak past someone that's drunk and nigh on impossible to sneak past Smaug.

The drunk has disadvantage, Smaug has advantage or maybe he just auto-succeeds except in the case of true invisibility.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Social abilities and skills shouldn’t be in the game. That’s what roleplaying is for.

This is such a funny 1980/1990s viewpoint.

Like, you're character is allowed to know how to do things you don't, like be an expert in history, religion, lockpicking, hand-to-hand combat, spellcasting, whatever, EXCEPT not talking or convincing or whatever. That's off-limits!

It's also an extremely ableist PoV, and I'm sorry to say that but it straight up is ableist in the worst way because some people just aren't great talkers, some people just aren't very convincing, many of them because of being neurodiverse. I've played with players on the spectrum who had some social issues, and particularly issues role-playing entire conversations (to be clear, many others on the spectrum do not have these issues, I'm not trying to suggest that), but who often had quite good ideas for what approach their character might be taking, and if we don't have any social skills or CHA stats or the like, then they're really out in the cold.

To me it's incredibly perverse than we can casually let a genuinely kind a thick guy play an INT 18 Wizard, or clumsy oaf like me play an 18 DEX lockpicking acrobat, but we can't allow someone who isn't great socially to be a smooth-tongued CHA 18 Bard.

A player accidently brought this home to me with incredible clarity in like, 1992 or so, when he came to me proposing an RPG which was basically D&D but didn't have INT/WIS/CHA because all three would be down to the player and roleplaying and their plans and so on. Ever since then I cannot take anyone saying "Get rid of CHA because role-playing!" remotely seriously (ironically this was a guy who thought he had about 18 CHA and actually had about 8).

No to grappling rules, especially ones where you can look at it and just know there's going to be a half-dozen Sage Advice postings about it.

The trouble is you need some kind of mechanics for moving people around the battlefield, and genuinely for grappling with people.

If you don't have them, it's just entirely up to how permissive your DM is, which means it varies insanely.

The Sage Advice issue isn't because there are grappling rules, it's because those rules suck.

 

[Oofta]

The drunk has disadvantage, Smaug has advantage or maybe he just auto-succeeds except in the case of true invisibility.

But the system is advocating for a set DC. The moment you start adjusting, it's no longer a set DC.

But I don't want to derail this into a stealth discussion any more than it already has.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

The problem I have with set DCs is because it doesn't take into consideration the perceptive abilities of the opposition. It should be easy to sneak past someone that's drunk and nigh on impossible to sneak past Smaug.

yeah well, it would require playing around with the rules, for sure.

Like, Dragons would have Truesight and that it could be easy to avoid that drunk guard since he's Poisoned (alcohol) and have disadvantage on Perception checks or he's just soooo drunk that he's considered Incapacitated/Unconscious (cant make checks).

But yeah, I would be difficult to hide from a creature trained in Perception with Darkvision, for example.

 

[Oofta]

This is such a funny 1980/1990s viewpoint.

Like, you're character is allowed to know how to do things you don't, like be an expert in history, religion, lockpicking, hand-to-hand combat, spellcasting, whatever, EXCEPT not talking or convincing or whatever. That's off-limits!

It's also an extremely ableist PoV, and I'm sorry to say that but it straight up is ableist in the worst way because some people just aren't great talkers, some people just aren't very convincing, many of them because of being neurodiverse. I've played with players on the spectrum who had some social issues, and particularly issues role-playing entire conversations (to be clear, many others on the spectrum do not have these issues, I'm not trying to suggest that), but who often had quite good ideas for what approach their character might be taking, and if we don't have any social skills or CHA stats or the like, then they're really out in the cold.

To me it's incredibly perverse than we can casually let a genuinely kind a thick guy play an INT 18 Wizard, or clumsy oaf like me play an 18 DEX lockpicking acrobat, but we can't allow someone who isn't great socially to be a smooth-tongued CHA 18 Bard.

Why can't you? In social situations I pay attention to what a person is saying, not what they say. Then I decide a DC based on the content of the discussion and have the player roll if the result is in question. I don't expect someone with an 18 charisma to be a persuasive player any more than I expect the guy with the 18 strength to bench press my dining room table.

 

[Oofta]

yeah well, it would require playing around with the rules, for sure.

Like, Dragons would have Truesight and that it could be easy to avoid that drunk guard since he's Poisoned (alcohol) and have disadvantage on Perception checks or he's just soooo drunk that he's considered Incapacitated/Unconscious (cant make checks).

But yeah, I would be difficult to hide from a creature trained in Perception with Darkvision, for example.

I just don't think there will ever be a great system for stealth. We could and perhaps should have a few options, but it's one of those areas that are just difficult to design for a mass audience.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Why can't you? In social situations I pay attention to what a person is saying, not what they say. Then I decide a DC based on the content of the discussion and have the player roll if the result is in question. I don't expect someone with an 18 charisma to be a persuasive player any more than I expect the guy with the 18 strength to bench press my dining room table.

???

I was responding to someone who proposed removing social abilities (presumably CHA) and skills entirely.

So there'd be no stat nor skill to check to roll against the DC. Not requiring a roll because of convincing/sensible/sane RP is a totally different matter. It's like with traps - if the player can tell me how he's going to jam/break the mechanism, and I know that'll work, I don't usually require a roll to disarm that particular trap.

 

[Oofta]

???

I was responding to someone who proposed removing social abilities (presumably CHA) and skills entirely.

So there'd be no stat nor skill to check to roll again the DC.

That's not how I read it, but if you do remove DCs altogether then it's just a judgement call on what was said not specifically how eloquently it was communicated.

I mean, I always set a DC for stuff like this, but sometimes the DC is "automatic" because you made a persuasive argument even if the player stumbled through it or just told me bullet points.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I just don't think there will ever be a great system for stealth. We could and perhaps should have a few options, but it's one of those areas that are just difficult to design for a mass audience.

I have to largely concur. I don't think I've ever seen a particularly good stealth system in an RPG. 5E's one is one of the worse ones, particularly as it interacts with absolutely terrible Surprise rules, but it is difficult to get one that really works well.

That's not how I read it, but if you do remove DCs altogether then it's just a judgement call on what was said not specifically how eloquently it was communicated.

I mean, I always set a DC for stuff like this, but sometimes the DC is "automatic" because you made a persuasive argument even if the player stumbled through it or just told me bullet points.

Yeah and as usual you and I both run the game similarly in practice! But I'm confident in my reading of the post until contradicted because I have come across the suggestion @overgeeked appears to be making countless times over the last 30 years. And at least in those other cases, people were literally advocating to remove social skills and stats entirely from the game, and force it to be 100% RP, and I just don't think that's fair in a game which lets you not have to do the same for other skills/stats.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

The trouble is you need some kind of mechanics for moving people around the battlefield, and genuinely for grappling with people.

If you don't have them, it's just entirely up to how permissive your DM is, which means it varies insanely.

The Sage Advice issue isn't because there are grappling rules, it's because those rules suck.

Would it be possible to have Grapple an automatic thing as an Action (or one attack) but the grappled creature has a free chance at the start of their turn to escape against a set DC based on the grappler STR score + a bonus based on the size difference (if any).