D&D 5E D&D Next Q&A: 03/14/2014

[Dausuul]

I honestly think that this bit better illustrates Exploder Wizards point. If you allow for skill levels to be so far apart, you basically create situations where you have to be this tall to ride.

A mage can cast fireball and a barbarian can't. Does that mean that, when the party is attacked by a bunch of goblins, the mage is "this tall to ride" and the barbarian isn't? Of course not. We don't give the barbarian a feeble fireball so that she can participate, poorly, in the mage's game. She's got her own methods of tackling a bunch of goblins.

In a "skill situation," it should be the same. The barbarian is strong enough to have a chance of swimming the river. The mage takes one look at it and knows that ain't gonna happen. So the mage uses his engineering skill to tie all the party's ropes together into a rope bridge, which the barbarian then carries across and anchors on the other side.

There is nothing wrong with a specialist having things the other PCs can't do. That's a good thing! The key is to make sure that everyone has something unique to bring to the table in almost all situations.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

A mage can cast fireball and a barbarian can't. Does that mean that, when the party is attacked by a bunch of goblins, the mage is "this tall to ride" and the barbarian isn't? Of course not. We don't give the barbarian a feeble fireball so that she can participate, poorly, in the mage's game. She's got her own methods of tackling a bunch of goblins.

In a "skill situation," it should be the same. The barbarian is strong enough to have a chance of swimming the river. The mage takes one look at it and knows that ain't gonna happen. So the mage uses his engineering skill to tie all the party's ropes together into a rope bridge, which the barbarian then carries across and anchors on the other side.

Skills almost never work that way, however. As least in a battle against goblins both classes have a way to do damage. Technically, the barbarian DOES get a feeble fireball. He gets a fireball that only hits one enemy(it is called "attacking with his weapon").

In a contest of who can climb up that wall faster, only skill in climbing helps. Most of the time skill in engineering is not going to help you unless you start REALLY pushing what skills can do. Worse than that are certain skills that are nearly absolutely necessary for adventurers: Spot, Listen, Search, and the like. Especially when the numbers become too far apart: Enemy rolls a 23 to hide. One PC has +22 and one has +2. One succeeds immediately and the other one couldn't make it no matter what he/she rolls. Another skill doesn't help you see or hear the enemy.

In fact, I'd wager that in 90% of skill situations every other skill simply isn't a useful replacement for a particular one.

 

[Dausuul]

Especially when the numbers become too far apart: Enemy rolls a 23 to hide. One PC has +22 and one has +2. One succeeds immediately and the other one couldn't make it no matter what he/she rolls. Another skill doesn't help you see or hear the enemy.

In fact, I'd wager that in 90% of skill situations every other skill simply isn't a useful replacement for a particular one.

Then that's a situation that calls for rethinking the skill list; or adding another "level" to skill use to roughly mimic the function of hit points in combat (perhaps expanding the range of options beyond a simple pass/fail); or simply accepting that when you have a party that includes a specialist in a skill and a total incompetent at that skill, the incompetent is not going to be able to stand alongside the specialist when that skill is called for. It's one skill check. It's not like you're asking the mage to sit out an entire combat.

As DM, I really don't want to be constantly standing watch over the skill system to make sure it doesn't do something dumb. I don't mind adjudicating the occasional corner case where the rules produce a silly result, but I expect the designers to put in the work so that the rules produce sensible results as often as possible.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

In a "skill situation," it should be the same. The barbarian is strong enough to have a chance of swimming the river. The mage takes one look at it and knows that ain't gonna happen. So the mage uses his engineering skill to tie all the party's ropes together into a rope bridge, which the barbarian then carries across and anchors on the other side.

There is nothing wrong with a specialist having things the other PCs can't do. That's a good thing! The key is to make sure that everyone has something unique to bring to the table in almost all situations.

I'd call that the 4E approach. Instead of creating skill challenges that demand a given skill, allow players to use what they have to advance in skill challenges. While I believe it's great that they were at least trying to do things differently, I doesn't work to me. I don't want to create every skill challenge in my game thinking about how players can meaningful contribute with whatever skills they have. I prefer a system where everybody has a chance to fail and a chance to succeed. If this is not the case, I prefer not to roll at all.

Then that's a situation that calls for rethinking the skill list; or adding another "level" to skill use to roughly mimic the function of hit points in combat (perhaps expanding the range of options beyond a simple pass/fail); or simply accepting that when you have a party that includes a specialist in a skill and a total incompetent at that skill, the incompetent is not going to be able to stand alongside the specialist when that skill is called for. It's one skill check. It's not like you're asking the mage to sit out an entire combat.

The interesting thing is: in Next, a skill challenge can last about the same time as a small combat encounter. I believe leaving someone out of a skill challenge in 3E may not be an issue, since you spend most of your time in combats anyway, but my experience with the faster combats in 5E point me to the fact that if players have to think a little bit about how to tackle a given problem, they may end up spending more time deciding how to roll their skills than finishing a combat encounter.

As DM, I really don't want to be constantly standing watch over the skill system to make sure it doesn't do something dumb. I don't mind adjudicating the occasional corner case where the rules produce a silly result, but I expect the designers to put in the work so that the rules produce sensible results as often as possible.

That's exactly where 5E skill rules stand for me at this point. I use the system and demand ability (skill) checks all the time without fear of screwing things. I set the DCs accordingly to the the advice in the playtest document and we are good to go. My players enjoy playing characters who can try things. They know the odds are not always in their favor, but they enjoy trying nevertheless. I hope the final system doesn't change to better emulate the "true specialist", because we're not missing this character at all in our game.

Cheers!

 

[DEFCON 1]

This idea of giving auto-success on occasion to certain characters (regardless of the DC and regardless whether other PCs still have to roll) is probably a good time to go back and look at the Backgrounds and/or Boon systems when we see exactly how they play out.

A PC might have a trained skill plus expertise and thus have a certain check bonus... whereas another character might have neither of those things and a lower check bonus. However, based upon the system as it stands, there might be a time where the latter PC might succeed on a particular check where the former fails. If that is a concern... take a look at a PC's Background or Boon, and if it directly relates the check in hand, maybe that character gets auto-success?

So for instance... a Commoner (Sailor) has proficiency with Athletics and Survival. In most cases when a check is called for either of those two skills, that PC rolls the check plus applicable bonuses for proficiency as normal. But on the rare and specific occasion where the PC is on a ship... a location where the PC has spent most of his life succeeding in those Athletics or Survival checks... perhaps the DM gives that PC auto-successes on several of those boat-related checks where he still might make other characters roll? Survival checks to avoid sea-sickness? Don't make the Commoner (Sailor) roll at all, because it doesn't make much sense, plus you want to avoid the situation where the (Sailor) rolls a 2 on his check and fails when the bookish wizard who's never been on a boat before lucks out and rolls a 20 and is fine.

Same thing for like the Noble. When the Noble tries to persuade regular folks with a CHA (Persuasion) check, they make the roll as normal. But if the Persuasion is against a castle servant... someone who's already predisposed to do whatever the noblemen and noblewomen of the house say... the DM gives the Noble PC an auto-success on that check because its the specific instance where the PC has it all over even other people who are trained in Persuasion.

Now granted... these also are places where giving out Advantage on the check can also be the right call, but it at least gives a DM another option at his disposal. If your Background says you are predisposed to being really good at a particular check in a particular situation... you auto-succeed on checks where you shouldn't ever really fail, and get Advantage on the checks when there is still a small chance that you could.

 

[ExploderWizard]

A mage can cast fireball and a barbarian can't. Does that mean that, when the party is attacked by a bunch of goblins, the mage is "this tall to ride" and the barbarian isn't? Of course not. We don't give the barbarian a feeble fireball so that she can participate, poorly, in the mage's game. She's got her own methods of tackling a bunch of goblins.

In a "skill situation," it should be the same. The barbarian is strong enough to have a chance of swimming the river. The mage takes one look at it and knows that ain't gonna happen. So the mage uses his engineering skill to tie all the party's ropes together into a rope bridge, which the barbarian then carries across and anchors on the other side.

There is nothing wrong with a specialist having things the other PCs can't do. That's a good thing! The key is to make sure that everyone has something unique to bring to the table in almost all situations.

To clarify about competence gaps I was speaking about an apples to apples comparison and not calling for any warrior spell ability to invade on the caster's turf.

I'm talking about a comparison between two characters who generally do the same kind of thing, such as kill foes via martial prowess. A sword & board fighter should be better with that weapon combo than any other but not to a point that if he/she had to use a long spear instead due to environmental conditions it would be next to impossible to score a hit. Nothing to do with being able to cast a crappy fireball because a wizard can cast a good one.

Any abilities that need to be restricted should be class abilities to the class(es) that need them. All character types should have access to any generic skills and an equal amount of skill points for them.

Ability scores are going to naturally make certain characters more talented at some skills than others. So if that mage can't swim worth a darn it should be because the mage wasn't that talented at it and didn't devote training resources to improving, not because the system made it artificially hard to learn.

 

[Derren]

I'd call that the 4E approach. Instead of creating skill challenges that demand a given skill, allow players to use what they have to advance in skill challenges. While I believe it's great that they were at least trying to do things differently, I doesn't work to me. I don't want to create every skill challenge in my game thinking about how players can meaningful contribute with whatever skills they have. I prefer a system where everybody has a chance to fail and a chance to succeed. If this is not the case, I prefer not to roll at all.

Why not simply present a situation and let the players decide how to handle it, rolling the appropriate skills with an appropriate (for the situation) difficulty. That is the most fair and also most "role playing" solution as here the role and character they play really matters instead it being devalued by "everyone can do everything because HERO!" where in the end the character does not matter.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

Why not simply present a situation and let the players decide how to handle it, rolling the appropriate skills with an appropriate (for the situation) difficulty. That is the most fair and also most "role playing" solution as here the role and character they play really matters instead it being devalued by "everyone can do everything because HERO!" where in the end the character does not matter.

But this is exactly what I do. It just happens that my current system of choice makes it a point that succeeding or failing in a given task is possible for a greater range of characters. Specialists succeed more, but not enough to make their roll (or the roll of non-specialists) useless. No auto-fail, no auto-succeed.

It's not everyone can do everything because everyone is a hero, it's everyone can do everything because everyone can be lucky enough in a d20 roll once in a while. I don't need a system that covers situations where a character should be able to succeed automatically and other wouldn't be able to succeed at all. As a DM, I can simply rule it that way and keep the game moving. Giant skill bonuses and equally giant DCs are worthless to me.

Basically, give me more games like 2E and Next, where an ability check is within reach for most characters, and I'll feel encouraged to place this kind of challenge in my game. Give me a game like 3E and I'll only use skills for solo tasks such as researching ancient knowledge, crafting stuff or scouting ahead. I know I did just that for years, and I don't want to be there anymore.

Cheers!

 

[Li Shenron]

Skill rolls would feel more realistic, and modest differences in skill modifiers would be more important, if the roll was on a bell curve or triangle 'curve'. Why not try 2d10 for skill rolls?

I have used 2d10 for such things in my own houserules for quite a while (for B/X) and it does cut down on the super low results issue.

I like the idea of 2d10, it feels it would "stabilize" the chance of success for easy tasks, while make hard tasks even harder. The problem is that the DCs might need some adjustment in some cases.

So, essentially, the DM advice says that the skill system works pretty well when you can't figure out if something should succeed or fail. And, if the DM can figure out whether something should succeed or fail without reference to the dice, then... well... don't roll the dice. I look at this and conclude that this seems like a good decision for D&D, but it's a definite change from the 3.x concept that tasks in the universe have a fixed DC and a character's skill modifier determines that's character's chance of success without the need for DM input.

Yes it's quite a change, and I didn't even notice it... I'm still thinking in 3e terms.

If the DC for doing something is 25 (for example) and the specialist is +22 and the non specialist is +4 (base stat bonus essentially) then one character is pretty much automatically succeeding while the other is automatically failing.

It seems to me that a lot people regard such case as always negative, but IMHO things are more complicated... consider for example these cases:

- a group of 4 have to swim across the rapids: who beats the DC wins, who misses the DC loses
- a group of 4 have to sneak past guards: if they all beats the DC they win, if one misses the DC they lose
- a group of 4 have to notice a trap: if one beats the DC they win, if they all miss the DC they lose

These work very differently, and having someone with automatic success is a small help in the first two but amazing in the third case, while having someone with automatic failure is doom in the first two and almost irrelevant in the third case.

Then you have skills like Open Lock which are mostly intended to be attempted by the specialist only. In that case it doesn't matter much if the non-specialists have automatic failure, but you don't want the specialist to have automatic success (this assumes the DM is properly using such challenge in the game i.e. failure doesn't screw up the whole adventure! If it does, then unfortunately the only option is really granting automatic success).

 

[Obryn]

What would be an example of a situation requiring a Strength check where the weakling wizard ought to have a non-trivial chance of beating the hulking barbarian?

When the Wizard is a PC, trying to escape a grapple by the NPC barbarian. Or vice versa, with a PC barbarian and NPC Wizard.

Or, to amp it up, when a giant is grabbing a PC Fighter.

For arm wrestling, lifting heavy stuff, etc., there shouldn't even be a roll.