D&D 5E 5E low level monster skill checks

[Odysseus]

When I'm using low level monster against higher level PCs. I find that there skill checks, with things like stealth , perception insight etc, is terrible compared to the PCs. The monsters can still be a challenge combat wise. But any sort of skill check vs the party they just seem to fail.
Any body else get this? and if so , possible solutions. I'm thinking about adding some sort of bonus for all monsters.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Yeah, I started a thread about similar problems, mostly resulting from expertise and how insanely easy it is for rogues to sneak by most foes of their "level" and lower. Similar issues are with ogres lack of athletics skill for purposes of grappling, etc.

Our first solution was to change expertise and double proficiency bonuses into advantage instead. This way the character is more likely to "do well" via the advantage, but the floor and ceilings of possible results aren't inflated.

Another thing is just give monsters proficiency in skills you think they should have which are currently lacking.

Do you have another other specific examples?

 

[Odysseus]

I havn't any examples where I recorded the all the info. I though I'd post and see if other people were having the same issues.
The impression I was getting was that the monsters are getting little or no bonus, while the party getting +10 or so on checks. And what ever I roll, the PC will win.

 

[coolAlias]

I think they wanted to keep the monster stat blocks to a minimum to make the game run faster, rather than go back to 3e style stat blocks that had everything.

The downside is monsters suck at everything except fighting, and they're even expected to lose at that.

At low level, expertise is good but monsters typically still have a chance even with a flat d20 roll. It's not until proficiency bonuses go up to +4 and beyond that it becomes truly hopeless (specifically in combination with Reliable Talent), and at that point the low-level monsters aren't supposed to be a challenge anyway.

Basically, if you have a high level Reliable Talent Rogue with Expertise, they need skill challenges that not even other PCs are going to have a chance at succeeding at, while still allowing those other PCs to defeat the challenge in some other way.

For example, maybe the McGuffin is sitting on a pedestal in a brightly lit room, no cover, bubble wrap covered in flour on the floor, and guarded by some Big Bads. These factors make it impossible for pretty much anyone to sneak in there, but your high level rogue might just be able to pull it off if he gets help from his friends (distraction, spells like silence, invisibility and fly, etc.).

That all said, I do think it's unfortunate that high-level skill challenges are more difficult to design due to the massive gap between average PCs and reliable talent experts. It will either be impossible for everyone but the rogue, or the rogue will basically auto-succeed.

 

[CapnZapp]

5E is intended as an easy mode game, which likely contributes to its popularity.

My solution? Just cheat. Any monster described as great at sneaking should be that relative to the adventurers it is likely to meet.

Whether it can sneak past som drunken commoner is utterly irrelevant.

So just require the more perceptive heroes to roll, say, 15 on the die they roll for their Perception check.

What the total is? I don't care.

What the DC is? I don't care.

I only care about how many groups are likely to have at least two high Wisdom characters trained in Perception, and that the probabilities of multiple die rolls mean that the probability of at least one of them will roll a 15+ (or that one of the rest rolls 19-20) really does give them a fair chance.

Creating a win win scenario: either nobody succeeds and the players will accept the ambush: "it did stealth really well, and none of us rolled great, so I guess we deserve it..."

Or somebody rolls really great and the group is rewarded by averting the ambush.

Don't tell the players you're only interested in the result on their dice though. Let them believe you care about their totals, or that you actually rolled up the DC using the monster's skill score!

 

[Odysseus]

The solution I'm considering is something along the lines of giving monsters relevant proficiency bonus and some sort of extra dice roll. The dice depending on the parties level.

 

[clearstream]

When I'm using low level monster against higher level PCs. I find that there skill checks, with things like stealth , perception insight etc, is terrible compared to the PCs. The monsters can still be a challenge combat wise. But any sort of skill check vs the party they just seem to fail.
Any body else get this? and if so , possible solutions. I'm thinking about adding some sort of bonus for all monsters.

I get this too. My impression (really just speculation) is that they either didn't have time or didn't think to work skills carefully through the MM. Shield Master is a good example: even before the timing nerf (or clarification, depending on your view) I found that if I made the assumption that most creatures would implicitly have Athletics, or even Expertise Athletics in cases where that feels right for my world, then the balance was a lot better. Without that assumption, making a roll to resist the shove felt like ceremony devoid of mechanical value.

With that kind of thought and observation in mind, and because I am using Fantasy Grounds, I just gave monsters what I felt were reasonable skills. I find myself moving toward something fairly consistent, whereby the most elite monsters will have one or two skills they have Expertise in, and up to four others, while plebs might have only one or two skills all told. At some point, I may even write that up. I've been stacked lately though.

 

[Krachek]

Monsters are meant to fail and die.
Pc are heroes. They are meant to have success most of the time.
I like that success rate rise effectively. with level.
In past edition we were gaining big bonus, but sometime then same 50% success rate as first level.

 

[CapnZapp]

Whereas I prefer the sensation of a living breathing world, not just there as the players' playground. If a monster is described as very athletic, smart or stealthy, I expect it to be just that against a regular adventurer of its level.

In other words, that while the party Rogue might well out-stealth it, it is still hard or very hard for the fighter (wizard, sorcerer, etc) to detect.

I completely reject the MM notion that monsters are supposed to be truly hopeless at everything they do except for their signature skill, where they're merely average.

The idea monsters are generally untrained at everything they do is a naughty word idea that makes my game less fun.

It devalues true skill. If success isn't an achievement, success isn't valuable.

 

[clearstream]

Monsters are meant to fail and die.

That's true and relates to what I meant about the checks sometimes feeling like "ceremony devoid of mechanical value". I don't object to monsters typically losing, I do object to monsters always losing (or so much so, that making a check feels pointless). Players should mostly win, but take that too far and for me it diminishes rather than increases the fun.