I blame human brains and our base-10 numbering system. 5, 10, 15, 20, etc. just looks better than 4, 8, 12, 16, etc. If we'd been using a base-16 numbering system, it would instead be 4, 8, C, 10, 14, 18, 1C, and so on and then 5, A, F, 14, 19, etc would be the one that looks weird.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
D&D General The Resurrection of Mike Mearls Games.
- Thread starter darjr
- Start date
UngeheuerLich
Legend
Base 8 would probably be better. Or base 12.
4,10,14,20,24,30 or 4,8,10,14,18,20
respectively.
And don't blame the brain. Blame their hands.
Mike released his psyker level 1 & 2 for the class today, fun stuff!
Shardstone
Hero
I love this Psyker concept. I love a class without subclasses, but that has choice that impacts other features regardless. It's so dope, and it really inspires me to get more creative with my 5E character design.
Zardnaar
Legend
3.0 used very similar DCs to WEG SW as well.
Last played D6 long time ago aka last year.
Taking a look at the skill documents.
The first document on skills....my main critique is it doesn't factor in advantage, and I find competent groups find all sorts of ways to get advantage of skills, the help action being the easiest example. Then there's guidance, which is such a strong cantrip I consider parties without it the exception not the norm, so that's an extra +2.5 right there on many checks.
In other words, I think Mearls' math underestimates the bonuses that even low level parties will commonly have access to.
I also argue that DC 30s as impossible are anything but in dnd. Again with various other skill bonuses and your highest stats, I routinely see DC30s getting hit in a game, and I think 5e has routinely underestimate the "impossible" nature of DC 30. I think DC 35 is the true "impossible" DC range.
The first document on skills....my main critique is it doesn't factor in advantage, and I find competent groups find all sorts of ways to get advantage of skills, the help action being the easiest example. Then there's guidance, which is such a strong cantrip I consider parties without it the exception not the norm, so that's an extra +2.5 right there on many checks.
In other words, I think Mearls' math underestimates the bonuses that even low level parties will commonly have access to.
I also argue that DC 30s as impossible are anything but in dnd. Again with various other skill bonuses and your highest stats, I routinely see DC30s getting hit in a game, and I think 5e has routinely underestimate the "impossible" nature of DC 30. I think DC 35 is the true "impossible" DC range.
On the dragon, I like the phased concept especially for solo type monsters. I think solos are too dependent on initiative rolls and so removing that for them and giving them a standard slate is solid. Not as much with the minion types like the wisp, at that point initiative starts to lose meaning to me.
The saving throw mechanic is interesting but I have some concerns with it. The first is the sheer math power of it. Since the Dragon is ~CR5, we can assume a 5th level party which will have DC15 spells in most cases. The dragon will pass its weakest save (Wisdom at +3), 83% of the time! (for a 1-3rd level party its 91%!). The dex save is 91% pass, 96% with the lower level parties. At that point you might as well just make the creature magic immune. Also the sheer amount of rolls for a single save is intimidating...though on a solo I don't mind it as much (as it will be the centerpiece and you aren't likely to roll a lot of saves as you would with a group of monsters). Ultimately my issue remains the same as with the legendary resistance mechanic, saving throw casters are brutally penalized on solos (basically subject to saveless spells or attack roll spells if they want to have any effectiveness) as compared to other classes.
The doomed mechanic is solid, I'm a fan of solos having certain effects with no save. Its a dragon, its just badass no matter what!
For the claw vs bite, I personally would rather the effect be more extreme. Make the bite even lower on attack but even higher on damage, so you really feel like its a choice as to the style you want to present. Right now its just a slight DPR calculation, not very interesting.
The saving throw mechanic is interesting but I have some concerns with it. The first is the sheer math power of it. Since the Dragon is ~CR5, we can assume a 5th level party which will have DC15 spells in most cases. The dragon will pass its weakest save (Wisdom at +3), 83% of the time! (for a 1-3rd level party its 91%!). The dex save is 91% pass, 96% with the lower level parties. At that point you might as well just make the creature magic immune. Also the sheer amount of rolls for a single save is intimidating...though on a solo I don't mind it as much (as it will be the centerpiece and you aren't likely to roll a lot of saves as you would with a group of monsters). Ultimately my issue remains the same as with the legendary resistance mechanic, saving throw casters are brutally penalized on solos (basically subject to saveless spells or attack roll spells if they want to have any effectiveness) as compared to other classes.
The doomed mechanic is solid, I'm a fan of solos having certain effects with no save. Its a dragon, its just badass no matter what!
For the claw vs bite, I personally would rather the effect be more extreme. Make the bite even lower on attack but even higher on damage, so you really feel like its a choice as to the style you want to present. Right now its just a slight DPR calculation, not very interesting.
UngeheuerLich
Legend
I think people are making a mistake when looking at maximum rolls.
Of course you can make a DC 30 check some times. But is it something you can achieve reliably?
Even a rogue with reliable talent and expertise struggles there.
10 (reliable talent base) +12 (expertise) +6 (attribute of 20) will only be 28.
If you allow guidance to be added after the roll (i guess that is how it works), you get to 30 75% of the time.
With advantage you are actually a bit better off as you roll higher than 10 75% of the time.
Does it seem impossible for the level 20 rogue? Hell no. But in the real world jumping close to 9 meters or running 100m in less than 10 seconds or 42km in less than 2hours seems so too.
But the best of the best can do so quite reliably.
In my opinion, you should rather look at the chance to fail. Not at the chance to succeed.
I am able, if I can do something but sometimes fail. Seldom on easy tasks, especially if I am naturally adept at certain tasks (above average ability scores (12 to 15)
So an easy DC of 5 seems right. At level 1, i can do them most of the time (85 to 90%). Sometimes I fail. If my natural adeptness is not that great (less than 10, I fail about twice as often (75%). Which still seems ok for an easy task.
I am base proficient in something if I can do easy tasks without chance of failure.
DC 5 does so (prof +2, expertise) .
The next harder task is DC 10.
The not very talented guy is doing that tasks 50% of the time. A coin flip chance.
The base proficient character has a +4 bonus. So a chance to do it of 75%. Also quite good. But we see, they sometimes needs two attempts to do it right.
In comes the lvl1 expert character: +3 from stats, +4 from expertise. Now we are looking at a 90% success rate. For a level 1 character, not bad at all. But still tense, as something bad can still happen once in a while.
So this should really be or medium difficulty. 15 is already hard for a level 1 expert. So if your game wants to encourage people doing mundane things without the help of magic, there needs to be a high level of reliability. Using DC 15s for normal tasks does not do it.
I do like mearls' level of success idea. Which is what I already use for a while. If you don't fail by 4 or more you succeed. But you pay for it with some problems.
I would also like it if prof bonus started at +3 and ended at +8. +2 is a tad too low in my opinion, even at level 1, and I'd like slightly earlier progression:
1: +3
2: +4
6: +5
10: +6
14: +7
18: +8
This progression increases at the same rate, but you get a head start compared to the 5e one. Makes proficiency mean more at low level.
Expertise would probably be a 1.5 multiplier instead of a *2 multiplier.
Zardnaar
Legend
In a real ganebits more advantage, expertise vary dice and guidance.
DC 30nisvudually clutch rolls required so kot donthinh that's reliable.
It's not rogues getting there though.
I've hit DC 30 BG3 using same mechanics in 5E. Enhance ability, Bard dice, Guidance. Level 5.
I don't generally put in DC 30 checks tabletop but DC 20 and 25 aren't that hard as designers thought. Slightly above average roll lowish levels.
Expertise +4 or+6
+3 to +5 dexterity (rolled stats. Level 4-8 otherwise)
Guidance+1d4
Bard dice d6 or d8.
Average roll is getting around 23 slightly above average DC 27 throw in advantage and yeah. d20+9 minimum low side plus advantage max is +25 with advantage.
Saw this happen in 2014 as Bard and light cleric were selected in one of our first games.
That's excluding other buffs I probably missed a few. Cleric or bard in party isn't to unusual along with help action or enhance ability.
Last edited:
UngeheuerLich
Legend
This is not the normal game experience. If that is what it is at your table more power to you (and harder checks).
The only thing that harder checks achieves is the reliance on such abilities and the overimportance of magic. If you have lower checks, mundane tasks can be done with skills alone. Sometimes with magical help.
Try it out. Has worked wonders in 3.5 and it still works wonders in 5e.
Once your people know that they have a good chance of succeeding without beggin the bard and the cleric for inspiration and guidance for every simple task, the game goes much more smoothly.
