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

[Oofta]

Where is the +12 coming from? 17th level PC's with 20 ability scores have +11 and don't have 20 in all stats and proficiency in all checks. It takes expertise or equivalent to get +12; or feat selection or advantage on a passive check.

Seems like we're looking at extremes instead of norms here.

I did have a player who ran a bard that had a ludicrously high perception check. IIRC it was 20 plus between items, feats, expertise and a high wisdom. But he was definitely the exception to the rule.

But even he wouldn't be able to detect a sneak attack if he could not clearly see or hear an enemy before they attacked.

 

[Ashrym]

I did have a player who ran a bard that had a ludicrously high perception check. IIRC it was 20 plus between items, feats, expertise and a high wisdom. But he was definitely the exception to the rule.

But even he wouldn't be able to detect a sneak attack if he could not clearly see or hear an enemy before they attacked.

A person can take 20 WIS, expertise, proficiency, and add a feat for +5 passive checks, sure, but that's hardly the typical.

Typical is a decent ability score and / or proficiency bonus. Standard checks are from -1 (for stat dumpers or some monsters) to around +9 for high ability and moderate proficiency. +12 isn't even reachable for most proficiencies for most players. +6-9 is actually pretty high most of the time.

Overshooting a DC isn't any better than overkilling an enemy or overhealing an ally. I stopped aiming for high bonuses in skills a long time ago because it just wasn't necessary, lol. The idea behind bounded accuracy was that everyone would be relevant in making ability checks and not having really high bonuses in the monsters reflects that.

The only point of higher numbers for monsters is to validate the higher numbers for players and eliminate the goal of any character being capable of trying any check. ;-)

 

[Oofta]

A person can take 20 WIS, expertise, proficiency, and add a feat for +5 passive checks, sure, but that's hardly the typical.

Typical is a decent ability score and / or proficiency bonus. Standard checks are from -1 (for stat dumpers or some monsters) to around +9 for high ability and moderate proficiency. +12 isn't even reachable for most proficiencies for most players. +6-9 is actually pretty high most of the time.

Overshooting a DC isn't any better than overkilling an enemy or overhealing an ally. I stopped aiming for high bonuses in skills a long time ago because it just wasn't necessary, lol. The idea behind bounded accuracy was that everyone would be relevant in making ability checks and not having really high bonuses in the monsters reflects that.

The only point of higher numbers for monsters is to validate the higher numbers for players and eliminate the goal of any character being capable of trying any check. ;-)

I guess my point was that if you really, really put a lot of effort into being the most perceptive PC ever you can do it. It could be annoying at times, but he had fun with it so it was fine.

In other words, he was the exception that proved the rule. I also suspect that some people that complain about these issues use permissive rolling (i.e. roll until you have at least one 18), high magic campaigns with all items available and so on. You can break the numbers if you want; it just takes some effort.

 

[coolAlias]

A person can take 20 WIS, expertise, proficiency, and add a feat for +5 passive checks, sure, but that's hardly the typical.

I guess my point was that if you really, really put a lot of effort into being the most perceptive PC ever you can do it. It could be annoying at times, but he had fun with it so it was fine.

In my experience, at least one player per group will go all in on Perception, often taking the Observant feat especially if their DM is the type to gate a large amount of content and rewards behind Perception checks.

I personally don't like playing in games where I have to roll to notice everything - for me the fun is in engaging with the content, not in finding it.

 

[Krachek]

A person can take 20 WIS, expertise, proficiency, and add a feat for +5 passive checks, sure, but that's hardly the typical.

Typical is a decent ability score and / or proficiency bonus. Standard checks are from -1 (for stat dumpers or some monsters) to around +9 for high ability and moderate proficiency. +12 isn't even reachable for most proficiencies for most players. +6-9 is actually pretty high most of the time.

Overshooting a DC isn't any better than overkilling an enemy or overhealing an ally. I stopped aiming for high bonuses in skills a long time ago because it just wasn't necessary, lol. The idea behind bounded accuracy was that everyone would be relevant in making ability checks and not having really high bonuses in the monsters reflects that.

The only point of higher numbers for monsters is to validate the higher numbers for players and eliminate the goal of any character being capable of trying any check. ;-)

You describe exactly what was happening in fourth edition.
Dc were so high that only the skill specialist was taking its chance. Others don’t even try.

 

[Ashrym]

You describe exactly what was happening in fourth edition.
Dc were so high that only the skill specialist was taking its chance. Others don’t even try.

It wasn't just 4e. 3e did that too, especially after the epic skill checks came out. It's the hamster wheel of chasing numbers.

Chasing numbers in 5e to get the biggest bonuses does very little other than having bigger numbers to look at. Giving bigger bonuses to monsters just to make those bigger bonuses player might take just takes a step towards the "why bother" scenario.

With some exceptions, OC, but in general it's not a big deal. I find I juggle my proficiencies away from my ability score bonuses to get generally good at more checks instead of stacking them for a few big ones and several low ones.

 

[Krachek]

Critters (and any other monster) skill bonus are not realistic.
Dev have not consult a biologist to evaluate the perception and the stealth capacity of a wolf versus a commoner to build the skill system.
Skill bonus are game stat put there to help describe and make believe an heroic story. To do so they favor grossly the PC.

 

[CapnZapp]

Where is the +12 coming from?

It was a random number I just pulled out of my hat, if that helps.

 

[Ashrym]

Critters (and any other monster) skill bonus are not realistic.
Dev have not consult a biologist to evaluate the perception and the stealth capacity of a wolf versus a commoner to build the skill system.
Skill bonus are game stat put there to help describe and make believe an heroic story. To do so they favor grossly the PC.

I think that gets into realism vs tropism. I can point to fictional characters who can sneak up on wolves. There are some players who want higher levels of realism and there are some players who want their PC's to go full wuxia or epic mythology

At some point the level of fantasy tropism needs to be applied and would be dialed up or down from there either by optional rules or DM's.

I agree the skill system isn't realistic. I think it's functional for a fantasy setting. Like you say, they favor PC's as heroic characters.

 

[coolAlias]

An amazing feature for an RPG ruleset would be a slider that lets you move along the spectrum of Realistic to Fantastic and beyond, automatically adjusting stat blocks etc. to suit each group's tastes.

I bet something like that could be done, though obviously it would be much easier digitally than in a printed medium.