DMZ2112
Chaotic Looseleaf
Oh my gods, six pages. Thank you all for taking the time to respond.
You are not wrong, but this is not in line with your original proposal. You said that high-level rogues should have the chance to sneak when no one else could. I agree with that idea, but that is not what this is. This is a high-level rogue having a chance to be detected when anyone else would be detected as a matter of course. To actually get to the point where such a rogue feels challenged, the monster would require a truly ridiculous bonus to their roll, well in excess of +10.
I hope I didn't shut you down, Ovinomancer; I have a tendency to speak in absolutes that is easily interpreted as a lack of interest in discussion. I'm not certain, I just project confidence.
Good. Yes. That is actually more helpful than it seems. Forest for the trees, and all that.
Is that not this thread?
I will cop to the fact that my issue is far more combat-focused than I thought when I wrote the post. I am much less concerned with someone being Solid Snake /in general/ than I am with someone being Solid Snake /during their initiative phase/. And it's not that the rogue often succeeds at hiding in adverse conditions -- that would not be a problem -- it's that they /always/ succeed, which I see as being just as little fun as never succeeding. That might be an exaggeration, but I do believe that it is uncertainty that drives entertainment in tabletop roleplaying, to a large degree.
What I have taken to doing is assigning each encounter a 'clutter value,' which I report to rogue players at the beginning of the encounter. The clutter value is an abstraction of how much junk is lying around in the encounter area that the rogue can use for cover. It directly translates to the number of times the rogue can hide before the enemy starts getting advantage on their Perception checks because the rogue is reusing hiding spots.
This worked fine until Reliable Talent. After Reliable Talent the enemy can roll for advantage until they are blue in the face and they still won't ever see the rogue. It's irrelevant.
I accept as logically valid the argument that this is fine. Logically valid or not, I do worry that it is less fun to succeed all the time than it is to have even a 5% failure chance.
That's a great idea. I will remember that.
Eloquently said.
Yeah... these two things are in no way linked. I am a game designer. Game designers are full of s**t.
Minimum. And that minimum value is still out of range for 90% of the Monster Manual.
You are entitled to your opinion, but in the opinion of nearly everyone I've discussed this with, that is not how D&D5 was designed. The rogue class depends on sneak attack every round, with exceptions being the rarity.
75% success against a garden-variety monster, under adverse conditions, seems pretty reasonable to me. If you want to have a particularly alert guard, you can give it proficiency, or even expertise, in perception.
You are not wrong, but this is not in line with your original proposal. You said that high-level rogues should have the chance to sneak when no one else could. I agree with that idea, but that is not what this is. This is a high-level rogue having a chance to be detected when anyone else would be detected as a matter of course. To actually get to the point where such a rogue feels challenged, the monster would require a truly ridiculous bonus to their roll, well in excess of +10.
Seems you have a good handle on it and don't need my advice. Enjoy it!
I hope I didn't shut you down, Ovinomancer; I have a tendency to speak in absolutes that is easily interpreted as a lack of interest in discussion. I'm not certain, I just project confidence.
The high-level rogue doesn't have to sneak through a dark dungeon past a sleepy guard. The high-level rogue has to sneak past a dragon, in broad daylight, at a full tilt run.
Good. Yes. That is actually more helpful than it seems. Forest for the trees, and all that.
I was actually just thinking about starting a post about whether or not expertise ruins the game.
Is that not this thread?
It just sounds to me like the argument is not so much "Expertise is problematic..." but "Expertise is problematic when I chop away two of the three pillars underpinning the game and things get wobbly." Which doesn't so much sound like a problem with Expertise per se, but the choices the DM has made. I think we agree here?
I will cop to the fact that my issue is far more combat-focused than I thought when I wrote the post. I am much less concerned with someone being Solid Snake /in general/ than I am with someone being Solid Snake /during their initiative phase/. And it's not that the rogue often succeeds at hiding in adverse conditions -- that would not be a problem -- it's that they /always/ succeed, which I see as being just as little fun as never succeeding. That might be an exaggeration, but I do believe that it is uncertainty that drives entertainment in tabletop roleplaying, to a large degree.
What I have taken to doing is assigning each encounter a 'clutter value,' which I report to rogue players at the beginning of the encounter. The clutter value is an abstraction of how much junk is lying around in the encounter area that the rogue can use for cover. It directly translates to the number of times the rogue can hide before the enemy starts getting advantage on their Perception checks because the rogue is reusing hiding spots.
This worked fine until Reliable Talent. After Reliable Talent the enemy can roll for advantage until they are blue in the face and they still won't ever see the rogue. It's irrelevant.
I accept as logically valid the argument that this is fine. Logically valid or not, I do worry that it is less fun to succeed all the time than it is to have even a 5% failure chance.
One thing that every DM should do, IMO, is give every single NPC in the game at least 4 total trained skills, and most of them racial traits and a feat.
That's a great idea. I will remember that.
If you had read the entire thread...the OP isn't complaining about high level rogues being too sneaky....the OP is saying that the mechanic of EXPERTISE allows character to break the BOUNDED ACCURACY design principle by reliably getting 20+ skill checks without expending some sort of resource to do so. There is a difference between saying high level characters can do some crazy things and saying high level characters can never fail at a basic class ability regardless of who they use it against.
Eloquently said.
It is an intentional design decision.
It is NOT a problem.
Yeah... these two things are in no way linked. I am a game designer. Game designers are full of s**t.
I havent had an issue with it. Even presuming a Dex 20/ Expertise/ +4 Prof Rogue, you're looking at DC 23.
Minimum. And that minimum value is still out of range for 90% of the Monster Manual.
'Hiding' isnt just button mashing in 5E. It requires a little bit of set up and/or context to be even possible in the first place.
You are entitled to your opinion, but in the opinion of nearly everyone I've discussed this with, that is not how D&D5 was designed. The rogue class depends on sneak attack every round, with exceptions being the rarity.