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

[CapnZapp]

In particular, a monster should not be losing when it is doing the thing it does best.

You're supposed to outwit stupid monsters, outrun the strong ones, and just kill the sneaky ones with fire.

If monsters are never actually better than you at anything, you never need to adapt and you never need to change up your strategies.

This makes everybody lose, since the game becomes less interesting, less challenging, less fun.

 

[dave2008]

The monsters in general are really devoid of skills. The simple solution (and what I have done in my Hardcore series on this forum) is give them appropriate skills. But I think you already realized that.

 

[5ekyu]

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.

Well, see, "the party getting +10" seems like specific magic being used, like say pass without trace.

Usually, I find it rare that the entire party has +10 on any given skill check, at least in tiers 1-2 thru 10th levrl. Then maybe even into lower tier-3.

But then, to me, at the higher levels, it's not the mundane monster skills thst are the threat. It's the more magical aspects.

That's to me a gesture, not a bug.

At tier-1, mundane aspects are dangerous, wolves can spot you too often, or maybe sneak up on you.

At tier-2 you gradually move beyond those being concerns, but your foes start becoming more and more capable in 9ther areas - passing through walls, blind sight, spells or breath weapons, etc etc etc.

By the time you are looking at whole part having +10s you are well past the point where a run of the mill beast with mundane skills is a serious threat or competitor.

 

[Shiroiken]

I do find it annoying at how few monsters actually have proficiency in any skills. I periodically just add skills I feel should be relevant, and the proficiency modifier is easily calculated by looking at the attack modifiers.

 

[Krachek]

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.

DnD is an heroic game by default. Dm should describe how amazing are
PC skills, features, spells. In an heroic movie we don’t get tired of superiors sense and skills of our heroes.
But of course if your table prefer Pc being more casual people, you can tweak the game a bit to avoid extreme bonus. For example give two more trained skills in place of expertise. Optimal builds are well know today, it is not so hard to nerf them a bit.

 

[Horwath]

I agree.

Background 2 skills,
Class; at least 2 skills,

every commoner should have proficiency in Athletics and/or Animal handling/Survival

There should be some themes with skills for all monsters

Brute:
Athletics, Intimidate, Survival,

Soldier:
Athletics, Intimidate, Survival, Perception,

Scout:
Athletics, Acrobatics, Stealth, Perception, Survival, Nature

Acolyte:
Religion, Arcana, Medicine, Insight

Thief,
Acrobatics, Stealth, Sleight of hand, Perception, Investigation, Deception, Thief tools

Diplomat;
History, Insight, Deception, Persuation, Intimidation,

Scolar;
Arcana, Investigation, Nature, History, Religion

 

[robus]

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.

This makes it sound like you’re doing opposed rolls? If monsters are hiding/stealthing near the party you should be rolling their stealth and comparing against the party’s passive perception. You should also have each member of the party declare what they’re doing when traveling/wandering through a dungeon and what the marching order is.

So only the PCs that have declared that they’re keeping watch for monsters would have their passive perception checked with the monsters stealth.

 

[iserith]

I haven't had this issue, chiefly because the monsters in my game only very rarely make ability checks. Generally those checks are Strength (Athletics) or Dexterity (Acrobatics) as they relate to grappling and shoving, plus Dexterity (Stealth) when hiding or trying to gain surprise and passive Perception for trying to avoid it.

In general I have found the monsters are not great at grappling or shoving compared to the strong fighter. And they aren't great at spotting the stealthy rogue. But when it comes to every other PC, it can go either way. This feel about right to me. I don't have any expectation that monsters will win against "specialized" PCs in certain areas.

What does it currently look like in your game and what expectations do you have about what it should look like, specifically? That will inform what, if any, action you take.

 

[clearstream]

DnD is an heroic game by default. Dm should describe how amazing are
PC skills, features, spells. In an heroic movie we don’t get tired of superiors sense and skills of our heroes.
But of course if your table prefer Pc being more casual people, you can tweak the game a bit to avoid extreme bonus. For example give two more trained skills in place of expertise. Optimal builds are well know today, it is not so hard to nerf them a bit.

Posters here seem to agree that PCs should be more powerful than ordinary folk in a typical campaign world. So I don't think it is right to raise the spectre of wanting them to be "more casual people". Rather I think the concern is - how reliably should PC skill checks (active, passive or contest) defeat monster capabilities? With that in mind, I'd want to give skills to monsters, before I changed Expertise or nerfed optimal builds.

A wolf gives a good idea how well this plays out. It has proficiency in perception and gets advantage on top of that, whenever relying on hearing or smell. A ranger with proficiency in stealth and prioritising Dex (say +4?) at level 4 might have +6. Stack in Pass Without Trace (2nd level spell, +10), and the wolf might (rarely) still detect the ranger. Stack in Guidance or Bardic Inspiration and the wolf might be unable to detect the ranger. Still, this is a CR 1/4 monster and the party have thrown in a few resources.

On the other hand, most creatures don't have proficiency in a wide range of skills that to me feel as if they should be common - such as athletics - far less advantage with them! So you can see how without proficiency a party can just perma-beat many creatures, even in tier 1.

 

[CapnZapp]

If monsters are hiding/stealthing near the party you should be rolling their stealth and comparing against the party’s passive perception. You should also have each member of the party declare what they’re doing when traveling/wandering through a dungeon and what the marching order is.

So only the PCs that have declared that they’re keeping watch for monsters would have their passive perception checked with the monsters stealth.

Yes, and parties are invariably led by a high-Wisdom Perception-trained character, since players are not stupid.

So the DC monsters need to beat is 16 or 17. At first level.

Good luck finding a monster described as "super sneaky" that does not stand an overwhelming chance of failing miserably at doing the one thing it's there for: executing an ambush of the PCs...

About the stealthiest MM monster I could find at CR 2 or lower was the Shadow and its +6 modifier. That still means it fails more than half the time against a zero xp character. And its a frikkin' shadow. And even that assumes the party isn't bringing a lantern.

Tl;dr: the skill scores of MM monsters (mainly their Athletics and Stealth, but also Perception) is downright pathetic.