D&D (2024) D&D Update: 2024 Rulebooks & Survey Results

This update with WotC's Todd Kenreck, who talks to Chris Perkins and Jeremy Crawford (who have the titles 'Game Design Architect') talks about next year's new version of D&D.

A few take-away points:
  • Where something functions differently in 2024 the books will guide you on that.
  • Archfey warlock 'stepped up' in the survey results to 89% satisfaction.
  • Each class gets a full page art piece, each subclass gets art.
  • Over 80 new monsters in the Monster Manual.
  • The font sizes are changing...
  • There is stuff that won't be seen in Unearthed Arcana.
  • Close to 1,000 pages in total over the three core books.
  • New options change the context of old options.
  • More common magic items, more high level monsters.
  • Fighter brawler didn't make it. World tree barbarian did, with tweaks.
  • 8 classes done, druid, monk, barbarian will appear in UA again.
  • WotC's new office building has setting-themed areas like Ravenloft and Feywild.
  • There are other unannounced books coming out next year.


Here's a transcript, thanks to Dausuul, cleaned up by Morrus.

Todd Kenreck: Hello everyone. Today, we have a bit of a fireside chat with Chris Perkins and Jeremy Crawford and we are talking about a number of topics. Some of that's going to be UA but mainly, we're talking about the 2024 core rulebooks and how they apply to all the D&D books that have come out since 2014 and all the books are going to come out after 2024. So, tell me a little bit about how these books bring everything together and how things are going to be moving forward?

Jeremy Crawford: You can think of these books as the culmination of the last decade where we have all been playing D&D, DMing, talking about the game, creating content for it. And here I'm talking about not only the members of the D&D team but everyone in the entire D&D community have been engaged in this. People giving feedback on Unearthed Arcana, these rulebooks represent that decade of conversation among all of us D&D fans and is our chance to make the foundational books of the game. The three core rulebooks reflect the best state of the game in 2024. Because, as we have developed the game since 2014, we've made a number of interesting design choices, experiments, explored new directions in later books that can now feed into the core books so that they get to be state-of-the-art. Because since they are the oldest books in the line, that means they don't currently get to benefit from some of the things we've learned over the years. The 2024 books are our chance for those foundational books for the whole game to incorporate all of these lessons.

Chris Perkins: Yeah, we want the gateway products for the fifth edition line to be among the best looking, easiest to read, most mechanically robust that we can, so that it's a great first experience for somebody coming into the game.

Jeremy Crawford: And a part of that, creating that experience, we have also endeavored to make it so that these books will work with the products that fed into them. So, you will be able to play a 5th Edition adventure you already own, like Curse of Strahd or Planescape that just came out. Or, you know, the things coming out between now and the core books: all of those, you will be able to use with the 2024 rule books that we have designed to both look backward and forward. We view the game as this living thing now that is continuing and, rather than this being a stop or a pause, this is a renovation. Let's make the foundation of the game even stronger so that we can have another decade, or however long, after that. The key for us is that the new books will not only introduce all sorts of new options, whether it's weapon mastery or bastions or new subclass options or new class features and new equipment, new magic items. on and on and on, new monsters: all of that 'new' is going to coexist seamlessly with the material that is already in the game. In any case, where maybe we have adjusted how something functions, the core rule books will walk right beside you and make it clear how that new functionality interacts with 5th Edition books you already have. So, you're not going to need like a conversion guide or anything like that; you're going to be able to just get these books and keep playing. And you'll even have the option of having mixed character groups. You might have somebody who has made a character using the 2014 version of a class and its subclasses, right next to somebody who's using the 2024 version of that class and subclasses.

Chris Perkins: Or if you're a DM running a game at home, you can pull monsters from the new Monster Manual, Monsters of the Multiverse, or any adventure that we've published, or any stat block that we've released on DDB. And all of that meshes together.

Todd Kenreck: You can have two different players playing warlocks, one from 2014, one from 2024, and they're going to be seamless and work together fine.

Jeremy Crawford: Yes. Now, I think people are going to want to play the 2024 version.

Todd Kenreck: I do too!

Jeremy Crawford: And in fact, I have the Unearthed Arcana feedback that indicates that at least the people who took the survey agree with me. Because my goodness, did that subclass leap up in satisfaction!

Todd Kenreck: Did it step up because of all the misty steps? Sorry.

Jeremy Crawford: Yes. It did step up because of all the misty steps. And now I'm imagining a movie about dancing. We're gonna 'step up' onto the streets. I know we always love talking about scores. The archfey warlock used to be one of the lowest rated warlock subclasses. As of the UA in which it just appeared, it is at 89% satisfaction. Satisfaction scores for a community as large as ours usually don't get any higher than maybe like between 90 and 93% just simply because the D&D audience is so massive. You can almost think as 90% is about as close as you're going to get to 100% satisfaction. So if something has 89% satisfaction, that is essentially a home run. And the warlocks are running around the bases.

Chris Perkins: With their fey patrons.

Jeremy Crawford: That's right, misty stepping around the bases.

Todd Kenreck: And cheating! I was to say, just like 'bloop bloop bloop'.

Jeremy Crawford: Misty stepped from first base right back to home.

Todd Kenreck: It's like playing checkers. No, that is one of my favorite subclasses to be tested so far, for sure. So what's interesting, is we were talking about the evolution. We've had Monsters of the Multiverse and we've had changes from 2014. Ten years later a lot has gone on and there's been some variation but we already talked about this before. It's like 2014 and then this linear growth of 5th Edition. And you all are trying to take 2024, the core rule books, and not be the beginning of something but in the very center of everything. Like the center of the web, the center of the cog that unites all the books that have existed and all the books that will exist in the 5th Edition.

Jeremy Crawford: Exactly, yes, these books are the uniter. They connect to the best options that have existed up until they come out and they set the stage for new options that will come out after they're released.

Todd Kenreck: Was this fun? Was this hard? Like, what was this process like?

Chris Perkins: Both, actually. Yeah, so, it's a fun challenge just from a design point of view but also, cramming in as many new Easter Eggs as we can into the books has been very exciting and rewarding. Seeing the art, you know, stepping up the art in the core rule books so that the core rule books now have some of the most fabulous art that you can find anywhere in fantasy, I think, has been enormously fun to see that.

Todd Kenreck: And covering a lot more like you mentioned: classes are getting art, subclasses are getting art, very indicative of those classes. Like, I've seen some of this art and it just blew my mind of how smartly it was done.

Chris Perkins: Yes, we have more resources at our disposal now than we did back in 2012 when we were putting the core rulebooks together. So we're just pouring a lot of beautiful, beautiful work into these books and turning them into real, real showpieces.

Jeremy Crawford: Yeah, because now you know every class has, opens with a full-page piece of art. Every subclass has an illustration of a character who is a member of that subclass. More spells are illustrated in the Player's Handbook, more magic items are illustrated in the DMG.

Chris Perkins: Yeah, more monsters.

Jeremy Crawford: And the Monster Manual for anyone who hasn't heard us talk about it before has over 80 brand new monsters in it. This is on top of the monsters from 2014.

Todd Kenreck: I mean, it's a really cool opportunity just to see like new layouts. And the font sizes are changing. I know this is a weird thing to be excited about but like...

Jeremy Crawford: You do Todd!

Todd Kenreck: I'm getting old, I have trouble reading! But, there's like a lot of great like quality of life improvements and how these books are now structured. That will be like way, you know like, it's going to be friendlier for those who are new to this hobby as well.

Chris Perkins: Yes, we're doing a bunch of explorations in terms of how information is presented on the page. How we can beautify the pages, making it easier to, make them more beautiful and also making it easier to navigate. So that you can find the information you need, and that is a glorious challenge. And I think people will be delighted, truly delighted by some of the innovations they're going to see.

Jeremy Crawford: And on top of the brand new play experiences they're going to have, people have gotten to see through the Unearthed Arcana process that at least half of the classes are being revolutionized in terms of how they play, thanks to the introduction of weapon mastery. We have the Bastion system that gives a new kind of mini-game that can occur between sessions. And there's a whole lot more that people are going to see, that you know, the stuff that they love will be there, but tuned up. Paired with brand new options and then you're going to be able to, as so many of us love to as D&D players and DMs, tinker with it all and mix it up in ways that are satisfying for your individual campaign.

Todd Kenreck: But we still have some surprises. Not everyone, you're not going to see everything in UA that's coming gup.

Jeremy Crawford: Oh, absolutely not. So we're making sure that every major piece of class design does appear in UA at least once. But there are going to be some spells that people won't see, brand new spells that people won't see until the book is out. There are a bunch of monsters, people won't see until the books are out. There are magic items people won't see until the books are out. Unless, of course, we next year do some previews. I mean, I suspect there will be previews where you will see some of it before but, they will not be a part of the UA process.

Todd Kenreck: I mean, it's interesting because we're not used to getting such a substantial update and having an edition last 10 years. But you know, the idea is like the Planescape campaign guide is the 5th Edition Planescape campaign guide, definitively. Like this is the thing, you know, Curse of Strahd. This is Curse of Strahd for 5th Edition. For the 2024 core rule books, you're not getting a different version of this adventure later that needs to be revamped. Pardon my pun. It's there; it's done, and we have revamped it. But like that's what's exciting is like Bigby's; you can pick up Bigby's now, the Deck of Many Things; you can grab Planescape and it's all going to be connected to the core rulebooks.

Jeremy Crawford: Absolutely! Because we developed a book like Bigby's while we were working on the new core books. Now the new core books are going to have like new ways of presenting certain kinds of information, enhancements to the stat block format, that sort of thing. But none of those changes make the thing that you already have stop working. You will still be able to use one of those fabulous giant stat blocks in Bigby Presents with your 2024 core rulebooks. And, I say that because there could be, especially the closer we get to release, and when people see parts of the books, an inclination to see that something is different and then ponder: does that mean it doesn't work anymore? The answer is no. It will keep working. The things will keep working together, because we have been very careful throughout this edition to kind of segment things off in terms of the design - it is possible for us to change something over here without creating a shock wave over there. We've made it so that we can make enhancements, also to presentation, that do not undermine how the system functions.

Chris Perkins: And if you've been following us on our journey through 5th Edition, you've seen us do this kind of thing before. Like, you know, the monsters in Monsters of the Multiverse - the stat blocks are formatted slightly differently than some of the earlier monster stat blocks that we presented. But they work perfectly together. This is a continuation of that.

Jeremy Crawford: And in Tasha's, another example where we presented new optional class features. And in the years since that book came out, people have seen you can have a warlock who doesn't use the Tasha's features playing next to a warlock who does and they can coexist. With the 2024 rule books, it's going to be the exact same kind of thing where, sure, your characters might have a few different abilities, but you can still play together.

Todd Kenreck: Has there been like any delightful surprises - like I know the bastion system, I'm fairly well obsessed with. But like in this process, like something that came up or some new idea? I know weapon mastery comes up a lot because that is kind of a game-changer in a huge way, especially if you're a melee class fighter. But is there anything that was a delight? Bastions, I'm obsessed with them - because that inevitably, especially in Ravenloft, because I love to introduce a bastion-like thing, or like a home base. Because nothing's better for horror than like a house that can be haunted. Like, give someone a financial stake in a house, and then haunt it or have a vampire invade it, and see where that breaking point is. Have we gone too far? Or have we sold the property? But like, is there - what excites you the most?

Jeremy Crawford: Oh gosh, it's hard because, combined, the three new books - which are the biggest versions of the Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, and Monster Manual the game has ever had - will be close to a thousand pages. There is a lot in there that we have been carefully tending and working on. So, yeah if we pause, it's like, 'Oh my God, I love so much of it!' But really, if I had to choose, I'm most excited about how some of the brand new options, when paired with things that are already in the game, will not only feel new on their own because they're brand new, but are also going to make old things feel new. Because, as soon as you pair some of these new options with an old thing, the whole context changes. That's true with weapon mastery; that's true of some of the new feats that are going to be in the Player's Handbook. That's true of some of the new spells, magic items, monsters and other game options that are present. You'll have this sometimes - this one element that will get added in and, even though everything around it's like, 'Oh yeah, I recognise that from 2014', but it will all feel different because of the introduction of that new thing that shifts the whole context. And there's something like that in just about every part of the game. Whether it's the changing encounter building rules or the way we're organizing treasure - that is different and how that will be noted in the new Monster Manual. There are all sorts of these little beautiful grace notes in every part of the game that bring new options, change your perspective on how that piece of the game works, gives you a new option, gives you new inspiration for making your own content and so on.

Chris Perkins: Yeah, I can't agree more. And I would add that, for me, one of the most exciting things is the chance to go back and just drop in a few new little surprises for people, and also just pay off on, now that we've got 10 years of playing the game and analyzing and hearing from folks, we know what some of the pain points are in the books and we can address them. Things like, well there aren't very many common magic items in the magic items chapter of the DMG so we'll put a few more in, uh, you know, that kind of thing. And then sprinkle in a few little surprises like, oh, uh, here's a new item that not only fills kind of like a hole or a niche, but actually kind of taps into something else in the D&D multiverse that we haven't touched on really yet. That opens up possibilities for products and stories in the future.

Todd Kenreck: Could you have had any idea that this would be going on this long for 5th Edition? It just grabbed people immediately. Like I remember everyone telling me about 5th Edition and saying, 'You've really got to try it. You have to jump in.' And I was immediately enchanted. It started with interviewing you all, and then I bought all the books. 'I'm like oh, this is so, this is so fantastic.' That's got to be gratifying, right? Or humbling? I don't know which.

Chris Perkins: Both, both, yes. It's gratifying that people care enough and enjoy the game enough to want to see where it goes next, and to be part of that creative process, that's enormously gratifying. It's a wonderful honor to get information from the community that helps us make the experience better for everyone. Like when we hear, 'Oh, you could do more in the game to support high level play with more high level monsters in the Monster Manual,' we can address that, and then cackle with delight as we come up with CR 20 threats to sneak into this book.

Todd Kenreck: Be careful what you wish for. You've been kind of on tour this year, you've been going to a lot of conventions. What's that experience like when you get to meet fans? 'Cuz sometimes I even forget, like we're all so busy, and you're busier than me, but like when you go to a con, you get to have this human-to-human interaction, and you see what these books and these games mean to people. What have some of these takeaways been?

Jeremy Crawford: One of my favorite things about going to Gen Con this year is we had our panel where we talked about some of the things we're most excited about in the three new core rulebooks. I loved that after that panel, the number of people over the rest of Gen Con, who would come up to me and say, 'I wasn't sure about the 2024 rulebooks until I listened to that panel, and now I can't wait to get them.' And I think we can certainly convey that excitement and convey information in conversations like this, but there's a special magic, seeing those faces, face to face,

Chris Perkins: It's a totally different experience than say reading survey data on UAS, which is completely dissociated from the human connection. In the wake of the pandemic, it's kind of shocking to me. It's like, 'Oh yeah, this is nice.' It's nice to be back out at these places and talking to folks in the flesh and hearing what they have to say about their characters, about their campaigns, about their fears and concerns, and about their joy at being able to play with their friends and see this game sort of carry on its legacy.

Todd Kenreck: So, UA's has been going on, we've got some survey results. You mentioned that feywild warlock did quite well, which shocker. I like a good teleporter! Well, did we get any feedback from the bastions system already?

Jeremy Crawford: Not yet. The data that we have right now is for the UAs right before that, and the overall scores were fantastic. Great old one warlock - 87%, the abjurer in the wizard - 78%, the diviner - 81%... like, you go through, and the satisfaction levels--and, again, for anyone joining us for the first time in a talk about scores, we're always looking for a score that is 70% or higher, that is our goal and right now I'm looking at the scores for everything that was in that UA and it looks like every single thing scored 70% or higher except for the brawler in the fighter, and also a few features within the barbarian. And so, because of that...

Todd Kenreck: My world tree barbarian is safe though?

Jeremy Crawford: The world tree barbarian is safe. So part of, sometimes, the pain of this process is the brawler didn't make it. We might revisit the brawler because we've talked before about sometimes it's just not the time for something and we can put the idea on a shelf and we can come back to it. What we found is the brawler's niche for people just wasn't clear enough. There was a sort of a lot of conceptual static for people between it and the monk and the barbarian. And so we're going to go in a different direction for that subclass slot in the fighter, but the path of the world tree barbarian made it, and but does have some things that need tweaks. So, people are going to see the base barbarian along with that subclass come back out in Unearthed Arcana, along with the monk and the druid. So right now, in a game that has 12 classes, 9 of them or rather a core book that has 12, we never forget the artificer, uh, 8 of them now are moving forward in our internal game dev with just the druid, monk, and barbarian needing another visit to Unearthed Arcana.

Chris Perkins: And I know Jeremy has said this a hundred times but the UA process, the way it's built, is everything that you've seen in UA is trial balloons. And so when the Player's Handbook comes out again in 2024, that will be a really exciting opportunity for many people as it's their first chance to experience these elements in their final form. You know, we're going to be making little tiny tweaks right up until the time the books are no longer in our hands.

Todd Kenreck: Aside from the profound questions like, 'Why do we keep creating D&D? Why do we love it?' we also have some fun news. We have a new building! It's nice, and the studio space isn't next to a microwave, so you're welcome. It's hilarious that we started out making these videos seven years ago with just a door slamming next to us. Back then, I was taping fabric to the walls as a backdrop. Now, we actually have a studio setting. Not with all the bells and whistles yet, but we do have a new building, There's a Ravenloft section which is amazing. Although, I'm a bit sad that we're not stationed in that section.

Jeremy Crawford: Most of the time when I'm in the building, I work in the Ravenloft.

Todd Kenreck: We have different sections that have themes in the building, and now you know where Jeremy is lurking. It's a Jeremy-shaped coffin with a light and a laptop desk.

Chris Perkins: Whereas I've been in the Feywild all day.

Todd Kenreck: Yes, I am also stationed in the Feywild. Any parting notes? I want to conduct these kind of fireside chats where we just casually talk about what's on our minds. As we're wrapping up the year, it's been a big year.

Jeremy Crawford: We have more Unearthed Arcana coming before the end of the year, including the classes I mentioned, along with some other goodies that we'll include with those classes. In addition to that, we have PAX Unplugged--Chris and I will be both be there to talk to people in person about D&D in general, as well as specifically the 2024 core rule books along with the game's 50th anniversary. And, we will also be having the Acquisitions Incorporated episode, which is the epilogue to the video series that we shot, that is currently airing. So, I also recommend people go watch that series.

Todd Kenreck: It's a really good series.

Jeremy Crawford: Thank you.

Todd Kenreck: It's been really... We also had a movie and we had 'Baldur's Gate 3'. So it's, uh, it's amazing to see so many new players like get interested in Dungeons and Dragons this year. So it's been fun.

Chris Perkins: And there are other products surrounding the core rule books that we can't talk about yet, but we'll be excited to next year.

Jeremy Crawford: That's right, because we have other books coming out next year, just as a part of it. It's still a regular year of D&D, but also those books all are connected in some way to it being the 50th anniversary. So we will be celebrating the 50th anniversary pretty much all of next year and also into the year after that. Because as you often like to point out the anniversary actually starts later in the year.

Todd Kenreck: Yeah, it's going to be a very big year. We're not going to be busy at all. Thank you, everyone, for watching. Thank you to Jeremy and Chris for taking time out of their clearly not busy days to do a 30-minute video. Thank you so much.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

There is no consequence. You can eat it whether it tastes good or bad, so there's literally no point in making the player roll.


They auto succeed every time as there is no meaningful consequence for failure. Bad taste or slightly under/over cooked doesn't matter. Unless preparing it for a king or some other special circumstance that alters what failure means.

I think you misunderstand what the roll would be for. It isn't about whether or not you make food that tastes good or bad. It would be about whether or not you successfully made food. You do realize you can burn food until it is inedible, right? Or put in ingredients to a degree to make it inedible.

Put too much salt in something, and no matter how much you try, you ain't going to be able to eat it. I have failed at cooking food before. It is not edible. You are misinterpreting what the check means.

People fail at easy things(for someone with training) constantly because they have no skill and no natural talent. The DC system works just fine to represent what is happening here in the real world.

Constantly? Most people drive constantly, correct? At least six times a week? If you calculate the number of crashes (failing at driving) per year with the number of cars times the number of times people drive per week (So yearly crashes divided by cars on the road per week) you get a failure rate of 0.3%.

And you hear about accidents constantly... but that isn't because any given individual is crashing 70% of the time, but because even 0.3% is enough to hear about daily when you are dealing with TRILLIONS of instances.

Not being attempted until the modern era doesn't necessarily make them DC 20. It just means you needed modern equipment. That modern equipment is the equivalent of magical tools that give a hefty bonus to success. Even if it is DC 20, the +12 was for AVERAGE doctors and specialists, not surgeons. The surgeons would have an 16-20 int, expertise and magical tools. The DC 20 would be routine and DC 25-30 would be those incredibly hard surgeries that would be universally fatal if not for their amazing skill.

Woah woah woah. What happened to our average person having an Int no higher than 14?! We started with you claiming that 14 int plus expertise was enough. Now you want 20 int, plus expertise, plus magical tools, plus advantage from helpers?

This is starting to sound suspiciously like a 14 isn't a high enough bonus to be considered very good at something.

This is a medieval game. You can't ever expect to be as good as a modern doctor with modern knowledge, training and tools. If that's your concept, it's a flawed concept. For the worst things, you get a regeneration or heal spell.

Please tell me in the rules where it states the DCs are changed when you play in a modern setting? I double checked the rules for power armor and laser rifles for the sci-fi stuff in the DMG, and nothing there stated "and since medical knowledge is higher, all medicine check DCs are reduced by 10" or anything like that.

That seems to be... something you made up? I mean, Ravnica isn't a medieval world, and it uses the exact same rules and DCs as the rest of the game. Unless this looks like a medieval setting to you

1700535524491.jpeg


Where did you get that idea? You are still ignoring the success unless failure is meaningful. PCs and NPCs do not have to roll for everything, or even most things.

You weren't following the start of this conversation, were you? Where I was told that a character with five 14's was omnicompetent and would never fail at anything, breaking the game. Yet, if I want to be good at any particular craft (ie, not fail more than half the time when a roll is called for) then I seem to require expertise. It is how you've answered every, actual game rule, DC that I've put forth. The person who makes that roll consistently has expertise, super-experitise, or advantage, or rerolls, or anything other than higher base scores.

Because people are dramatic? There's nothing broken about +5 or even +10. Or heck, +17. Skills aren't broken in 5e.

No.

It would be if it was true. It's not. There is no achievable skill bonus in 5e that is broken.

So you disagree with those saying that a character with a stat array of 16/14/14/14/14/14 is too powerful?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

So you disagree with those saying that a character with a stat array of 16/14/14/14/14/14 is too powerful?
Who is saying it is too powerful? But it is unlikely, based on rolling 4d6 and dropping the lowest. Most NPCs and PCs are going to have a more even spread. Random artisans are not going to be rocking competence in every craft, unless theybare the god Lugh Silverhand in disguise.
 

And Red Herrings are red. I said nothing about every possible piece of information out there. You can be damned sure, though, that they made a bunch of knowledge checks when they got to that planet to learn about the dangerous flora and fauna, including the physiology and abilities of the blue people. And they used it to their advantage by making the remote blue people for the humans to use. That happened because of knowledge checks...................and moved the plot forward.

Not a Red Herring. And also, missing the point. They learned about the Flora and Fauna alright, but not from knowledge checks. They learned about them from trial and error. Because a knowledge check is something you make to remember something you already knew. A knowledge check is not studying a new thing no one has ever seen or heard of before.

I use them to move the plot forward all the time. So do my players and most of the players I've played with in other games. If you guys can't figure out how to do that, I'm not sure what to say.

Knowledge is power.

Maybe try "My game doesn't work like common games do"? Or "My game is the exception"? Or how about "this isn't my experience"? Note, I've never once denied that your game probably works that way. Just that it isn't how I've seen and heard most games working.

I could figure out ways to make knowledge checks vital to progressing the story, it is pretty easy actually. All you have to do is prevent them from moving forward without that knowledge, lock progress behind that check. You know, break one of the fundamental rules for how the game should be run. But if you DON'T do that, and you allow players to find multiple routes, then there are routes that can get you to where you need to go without knowledge. This is actually harder to do with some other skills, like Stealth or Deception, because there are certain types of plans which can only be achieved via those skills. But knowledge skills don't work that way.

They do look a lot alike and it takes knowledge skills to tell which is which and what they can do. You only know that all skeletons are mindless if............................................you make a knowledge check or learn that knowledge another way. The information doesn't just pop into a PC's head via osmosis.

Um, no. You don't need to be able to tell the DM what you will learn in order for it to be helpful. That statement is just plain wrong.

A creature with one skull looks a lot like a creature with skulls at most of its joints? Seriously, you are getting into "well, why would your character's even know dragons can fly?" territory here. Not everything it is possible to know is gated behind a knowledge check, and if you see something in robes, talking, with magic all around it.... you aren't going to think skeleton. The PCs know what a skeleton is, they aren't so super special and rare that any possible knowledge about them could only be gleaned by rolling a DC 15 religion check.

I'd leave because the DM was incompetent.

Incompetent because they didn't remake the adventure when you started "using my knowledge skills to affect the game"? Weird, since I believe you have ALSO said that the DM is the one who calls for skill checks. So how are you forcing these knowledge checks to happen, if the DM decides if you roll?

You've clearly never paid close attention to my arguments about DM power.

Maaaaaaaybe, it's because you're only wrong about the int and wis skills. 🤷‍♂️

Why would I talk about stuff you got right?

It just seems rather pointless to continously nitpick over whether or not Intelligence is the fourth or tied for third most important ability score in the game.
 

Maybe try "My game doesn't work like common games do"? Or "My game is the exception"? Or how about "this isn't my experience"? Note, I've never once denied that your game probably works that way. Just that it isn't how I've seen and heard most games working.
I see no particular reason to believe that what @Maxperson ia describing is particularly unusual. This stuff is in the books, I've seen it used in person and on streaming shows.
 

Maybe to be clearer, "cosmic" includes features of the cosmos, such as a mountain, river, or other feature of nature, as well as sky, sun, clouds, ocean, and so on. All scores are possible, and depends on the concept, with some nature beings being stronger and more active.

That isn't what the vast majority of people mean when they say "cosmic". Which, per the definition, is: relating to the universe or cosmos, especially as distinct from the earth.

Mountains and rivers and nature is not distinct from earth.

I expect a typical professional to have a primary score of about 12, plus proficiency in both the pertinent skill and tool set, whence Expertise in the checks. A guild master might have a score of 14, and a relevant feat or similar.

And with that score (12+expertise) they will fail at standard parts of their job 55% of the time. I don't understand how people don't see something bizarre with this. You have held a job, right? You had to do things of medium difficulty in that job, correct? Was the expectation that you would fail HALF THE TIME!

Most tailors that open a business are extremely skilled. In a medievalesque, the kids grow up doing their family business, or apprenticing for a foster parent.

So, you would say that they should have a better chance that the mechanics you have laid out would give them? 12+expertise isn't getting you to that level. They would fail make cloths half the time they attempt it. That is not extremely skilled.

Most of the DCs look reasonable to me ... with a few glaring exceptions.

Your posts come across as not having a sense of how difficult skilled labor is.

My mother is a business woman. But she also happens to be unusually skilled at sewing, and occasionally works on various projects for artistic reasons. I have good sense of what being a tailor entails. I am shocked you assume it is easy.

How often does your mother fail at sewing? When she decides to make something, how often does she fail at that task and not make anything?

I'm not assuming the task is easy. I'm assuming the people doing the task aren't bumbling around and basically flipping a coin on whether or not they succeed at the project they have undertaken. Remember, proficiency in a tool is good enough to be hired as a skilled laborer. They are good enough to do the job, professionally, for money. For a lot of money.

And per the rules, they fail at that job half the time at least? That doesn't make sense. So, clearly, what it means to be successful and competent isn't playing out here. And so, I propose, that since the DCs seem correct, and we aren't going to be altering proficiency, that the only lever we really have left to pull is the ability scores. And therefore... your average [blank] isn't working with a 10 or even a 12.
 

The thing that bemused me is the assumption that a wandering Adventurer should be as skilled as a professional Weaver with their worst ability or they are somehow incompetent.

And yet, if the adventure has a bonus less than that weaver, they are still considered omnicompetent and unable to fail. How bizarre.
 

I think you misunderstand what the roll would be for. It isn't about whether or not you make food that tastes good or bad. It would be about whether or not you successfully made food.
No it is not. Not unless the DM didn't know what rolls are for in 5e.
You do realize you can burn food until it is inedible, right? Or put in ingredients to a degree to make it inedible.

Put too much salt in something, and no matter how much you try, you ain't going to be able to eat it. I have failed at cooking food before. It is not edible. You are misinterpreting what the check means.
This is the DM going out of his way to make trouble for the players for no good reason and not following 5e direction. There is no meaningful consequence for failure to cook food. Missing a meal isn't diddly.
Constantly? Most people drive constantly, correct? At least six times a week? If you calculate the number of crashes (failing at driving) per year with the number of cars times the number of times people drive per week (So yearly crashes divided by cars on the road per week) you get a failure rate of 0.3%.

And you hear about accidents constantly... but that isn't because any given individual is crashing 70% of the time, but because even 0.3% is enough to hear about daily when you are dealing with TRILLIONS of instances.
Right. Trillions of accidents per year :rolleyes:

Car driving has a meaningful consequence for failure, unlike cooking in your examples.
Woah woah woah. What happened to our average person having an Int no higher than 14?!
You moved the goalpost to a critical need patient who would get a surgeon(not average).
Now you want 20 int, plus expertise, plus magical tools, plus advantage from helpers?
They get what they get. You don't get to deprive the doctors of what they have just to be right.
This is starting to sound suspiciously like a 14 isn't a high enough bonus to be considered very good at something.
Nope! Perfectly fine for the vast majority of cases and was working out wonderfully until you moved the goalposts in order to score points. You moved the goalpost and so what would happen happened. They brought in the surgeon who is better than the average people like they would in those circumstances. You don't get to move the goalposts and then complain when I meet you at the new goal line.
Please tell me in the rules where it states the DCs are changed when you play in a modern setting? I double checked the rules for power armor and laser rifles for the sci-fi stuff in the DMG, and nothing there stated "and since medical knowledge is higher, all medicine check DCs are reduced by 10" or anything like that.

That seems to be... something you made up?
Since I never argued that they change, this would be what they call a Strawman. I'm not going to prove something to you that I never claimed. You can go ahead and prove it to yourself since you came up with it. 🤷‍♂️
You weren't following the start of this conversation, were you? Where I was told that a character with five 14's was omnicompetent and would never fail at anything, breaking the game.
That person was wrong. Straight 20's doesn't break the game. Six 14's is plenty good, though.
Yet, if I want to be good at any particular craft (ie, not fail more than half the time when a roll is called for) then I seem to require expertise. It is how you've answered every, actual game rule, DC that I've put forth. The person who makes that roll consistently has expertise, super-experitise, or advantage, or rerolls, or anything other than higher base scores.
If you want to be nearly perfect in your craft you need expertise. You don't need to be perfect in order to be good. The vast majority of DCs will be 10-15. By the time you are encountering 20's on a regular basis, you will be high level.
So you disagree with those saying that a character with a stat array of 16/14/14/14/14/14 is too powerful?
Absolutely. 5e is an edition where stats don't matter all that much. Straight 20's isn't too powerful. Boring, yes. too powerful, no.
 



My spouse does pottery. They would tell you that some of their stuff doesn't work out at all, even conceptually, some doesn't survive the kiln, some is okay, and a few they really love.

Does your spouse do it as a hobby, or as a way to support your house and family? Do you believe that those different approaches would lead to different results?

Again, context needed. Is this just a basic fire, and do they have the appropriate ingredients? Probably no skill check even needed.

And yet, the game states otherwise.
🤷‍♂️


DC 15, with Alchemist tools, to create a basic fire.

Success and failure are often gradients, not absolutes. Like the dinner I cooked tonight. Pretty okay, but not gonna win any awards.

So you successfully cooked food? Do you imagine if you failed to cook food, you would still have cooked food? Does that make sense? To me, if you fail at a task, you don't succeed at that task.

Excellent illustration of my point - thank you! Success and failure are contextual. Does a pitcher throw strikes 70% of the time? You are just cherry picking what you want to measure - I notice that you completely ignored my point about batting average, which completely undermined your claim that no one can be an all-star (your words) with a 40% success rate.

Your response indicates to me that you know your argument doesn't make sense.

Or that baseball is a bad example? Nah, it must be that I'm a two-faced liar who knows he is wrong and that you are right.

If it's a solo game, fill your boots. No one cares. It's between you and yourself, so if you're having fun, it's all good. Weird example.

Not a weird example. The point.

I was told that the character with a 16/14/14/14/14/14 was broken. Mechanically. But if it can work just fine in a solo game.... how can it be broken? And as a person who has played solo games, I can tell you, having low scores is a death sentence for fun. Unless you have fun by losing all the time.

Hmmm...I dunno. Give me some context. How fast are they going? Are they sober, or drunk? Have they driven this vehicle before? What are the road conditions? Are they simultaneously fighting for their lives, which might well be the case were a scenario like this happening in a D&D game?

Or are you just asking me if a hypothetical D&D driver should have to roll to make a right turn while driving at normal speed in normal conditions? Nope, obviously not. As a DM would you ask for such a check?

Like I stated, context matters. There is no such thing as "success" without an attached context. Success is an inherently subjective concept.

Wouldn't being drunk be poisoned, so disadvantage? Nothing to do with the DC.
Road conditions are bad? Disadvantage, nothing to do with the DC.
Do PCs never make skill checks outside of combat? Bizarre, I thought exploration was a pillar of the game.
Driven the vehicle before? In the context of DnD it doesn't matter. Even in the context of driving, driving a new car doesn't affect your likelihood of not crashing that much.

Now, again, the stated DC was "a sharp right turn". Maybe it was at a higher speed. Enough to feel the pull of the car. Do you still expect 70% of the people who make that turn to crash? The rate of car accidents is around 0.3%, how does a 70% failure rate make sense?

I'm not sure why this would be amusing to you. Was I one of those posters? No - I have been quite consistently arguing against rolling; I think it is inherently inequitable. I use standard array. Your extreme example reinforces my position.

I'm against rolling too. But I don't think the standard array is very great either. It's decent, but it inevitably ends up with multiple PCs unwilling or dreading rolling when it matters, because mathematically, having between a +1 and a -1 is a death knell for accomplishing anything other than the most basic of tasks.

And the standard array gives you FOUR stats in that range, out of SIX. But propose most players should have a +2 in multiple abilities? And you are an extremist.

The game is more or less designed around the standard array, so your DM would have to take these higher ones into account when designing scenarios, but otherwise, I wouldn't see a problem. If everyone at your table wants to play a game with high ability scores, who am I to judge? Have fun!

Why would they have to take the higher scores into account? The Standard array allows you to start with two +3's. Does no one roll their highest score with skill proficiency in your games? If they do, then you are already taking into account ranges of +5 to +10 on skill checks over all levels of play. Why would you need to adjust anything for people with +2's?
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top