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

[pemerton]

the solution is to not throw railroads which demands to use skill X at the players and can only continue when the succeed

Agreed. As the book says, "Success at the challenge should be important to the adventure, but not essential. You don’t want a series of bad skill checks to bring the adventure to a grinding halt. . . When a player’s turn comes up . . . let that player’s character use any skill the player wants. As long as the player or you can come up with a way to let this . . . skill play a part in the challenge, go for it. . . Always keep in mind that players can and will come up with ways to use skills you do not expect. . . [M]ake sure these checks are grounded in actions that make sense in the adventure and the situation." (4e DMG pp 72-73, 75)

Why not simply present a situation and let the players decide how to handle it

Which means that the group has to be creative and adapt the way they play to their characters (roleplay!)

Agreed. The GM presents a situation, and the players have to be creative and decide how they use their PCs's skills to handle the challenge. As the book says, "It’s up to you to think of ways you can use your skills to meet the challenges you face." (4e PHB, p 179)

Though in some cases the GM has to work with the players - for instance, if the GM describes a well of other-worldly power and a player declares that his/her PC is trying to tap the power source, is that an Arcana or a Religion check? The GM has to help out here: with the fiction, the PC is just trying to tap the power; at the table, though, we have to assimilate that task under one or another discrete skill descriptor.

rolling the appropriate skills with an appropriate (for the situation) difficulty.

Whether DCs are set "objectively" (as in 3E and D&Dnext) or via "scaling" (as in 4e) is to some extent a separate issue. For instance, bounded accuracy in D&Dnext means that the DC range is constrained, much as it is via scaling DCs in 4e. Whereas 3E, with its non-bounded "objective" DCs leads to DCs over a much wider range of difficulties.

let them build and specialize their characters however they want and let them decide how to tackle a problem.

I think the scope of PC build choices is a separate issue too. I think there are good reasons for the game to discourage excessive specialisation in PC build, both for reasons that [MENTION=66434]ExploderWizard[/MENTION] has given, and also because too much specialisation undermines party play. (As the PCs can't all participate in a particular ingame situation.) And party play is pretty integral to D&D.

That is the most fair

Huh? I don't really see how fairness is relevant. Skill systems can have a variety of interesting properties, but I've never thought of fairness or unfairness as one of them!

and also most "role playing" solution

instead of going "Us heroes. Lets roll and hope"

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.

I'm not sure what the target of these remarks is, but you can have clear character differentiation - such that role, character and player choices matter - in a system that uses a constrained DC range and does not allow PC skill competence to blow out wildly. (4e illustrates the former, though perhaps not so much the latter.)

 

[Derren]

A lot of the time the PCs are reacting to a situation rather than planning it. They can't choose everything that happens to them or every obstacle in their way.

Also, if everyone who couldn't swim never got on board a ship, then there would be a LOT of people who couldn't get anywhere. I think it's the same reason that people who can't fly get on planes. No one expects to need to.

No, but with enough planning they can make sure that situations which they are well equipped/skilled to deal with come up a lot more often and also can cover their weaknesses. As for the rest of those situations, having to deal with a bad situation now and then is part of the game.

Are the PCs traveling with a ship one time in the entire campaign because they have to and otherwise prefer land/flight/magic travel? They can hope for the best and maybe make simple precautions. But when they are all very good swimmers, why not travel with the ship more often? And when they have to, training swimming for a bit becomes a really good idea.

Also, don't forget that this is about situations where only highly specialized characters have a chance to succeed while other characters with no or low training will always fail. Such situations are quite rare, especially when you are not looking for or even actively avoiding them.

 

[pemerton]

having to deal with a bad situation now and then is part of the game.

What does "deal with" mean here?

Do you mean "suffer the consequences of"? In that case isn't the GM effectively railroading? Or do you mean "make checks to try and resolve"? In which case the points made upthread about the problems with hyperspecialisation become relevant.

They can hope for the best and maybe make simple precautions.

If "simple precautions" means "lots of time spent at the table discussing inventory and planning for contingencies", then count me out. I prefer the game to support a seat-of-the-pants REH Conan-style approach.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

No, but with enough planning they can make sure that situations which they are well equipped/skilled to deal with come up a lot more often and also can cover their weaknesses. As for the rest of those situations, having to deal with a bad situation now and then is part of the game.

I know my players plan for NOTHING. They walk in blindly hoping their skills and abilities will save them. If I assumed they needed to plan for things, I think I'd kill them off every session. Instead they still end up in situations where the non specialized need a 10+ to succeed at getting away from certain death. I just don't want this situation to mean they need a natural 20 or it's certain death.

The average situation they walk into sounds something like this: "Here is a map to an ancient dungeon written on a cocktail napkin by a drunk guy. Want to go there?" And there answer is yes without asking any questions or buying anything in preparation for their journey.

Are the PCs traveling with a ship one time in the entire campaign because they have to and otherwise prefer land/flight/magic travel? They can hope for the best and maybe make simple precautions. But when they are all very good swimmers, why not travel with the ship more often? And when they have to, training swimming for a bit becomes a really good idea.

Most of the time ships appear in my game whenever the PCs need to cross water for any reason. The PCs have no idea how many times they'll need to cross water in their lifetimes. They don't know how risky a boat trip will be each time they get on one. It could be attacked by the Leviathan and they could all drown or it could make it safely to its destination without any issues at all.

Also, if we're assuming D&D Next rules there is no way to train in Swimming(Athletics) after 1st level without multiclassing. You can't decide to train in it later. Some people will be forever bad at it and some will be forever good. If the ship capsizes and they are forced to swim for it, I don't want a situation where the poor swimmers immediately fail and the good ones immediately succeed. The difference should be small enough that they both have a chance.

Also, don't forget that this is about situations where only highly specialized characters have a chance to succeed while other characters with no or low training will always fail. Such situations are quite rare, especially when you are not looking for or even actively avoiding them.

Honestly, there's no way of telling how often they will happen. It depends what system you are using. After all, if you want something to be tough for someone with +25 to a skill, you need to set the DC to 35 or higher. How rare they encounter these things is purely up to the DM. One DM might use them every session while another one never uses them.

But using the example above, let's say they walk blindly into the dungeon scrawled on the napkin and they find a room with a really thin beam as the only way to cross a room. There was no way to actively avoid it since they didn't know it was there until they arrived at the room.

Now, there's a number of ways they could avoid having to make the check or make the check easier. I'd give them credit for coming up with interesting ideas. However, if they decide to simply balance across, I don't want that to mean immediate death if they fail. I also don't want it to be so hard that they turn back. I want it to be dangerous enough that there is risk involved but easy enough that even the people bad at balancing have a good enough chance to succeed that they'd think of trying it.

 

[Hussar]

When no one can climb, why did the PCs chose to travel over a mountain? When no one can swim, why did they board a ship without taking precautions like potions or having air tight barrels to hold onto around?

But, that's not the issue. The issue is 2 PC's can swim like fish and 2 PC's drown. Or 2 PC's can climb like mountain goats and 2 PC's have trouble with stairs.

When you allow skill levels to be so broad, you can pretty easily wind up in situations where one (or more) PC automatically succeeds at checks that another PC will automatically fail at.

I have no problems with there being a difference between skilled and unskilled. And, I have no problems with declaring that you need at least some training to be able to perform certain tasks. After all, I don't care how smart you are, you cannot pick up a set of bagpipes and start playing music without at least a few lessons.

But, for the majority of actions, particularly actions that are fairly stock and trade for adventurers, they don't need specialized training (although that can certainly help) and even an unskilled person should be able to do it once in a while. If you keep the spread from top to bottom to about 10 points, then the d20 remains viable. As soon as the spread gets to 20 points, then a d20 doesn't matter anymore.

 

[Derren]

What does "deal with" mean here?

Solve a situation where the party is not optimally prepared for.

I know my players plan for NOTHING. They walk in blindly hoping their skills and abilities will save them.

That is not a problem of a system. Either you support this kind of playstyle which means you will never really challenge them with something they can't solve with their natural abilities like in a supers game or you "teach them a lesson" by having situations where they will fail without preparations (or just don't pull punches when they get themselves into such a bind)

Most of the time ships appear in my game whenever the PCs need to cross water for any reason. The PCs have no idea how many times they'll need to cross water in their lifetimes.

They can make a good guess based on where the live and how often places only reachable by sea travel come up.

Also, if we're assuming D&D Next rules there is no way to train in Swimming(Athletics) after 1st level without multiclassing. You can't decide to train in it later.

Thats one of the many reasons for why I think 5Es so called "skill system" is horrible.

After all, if you want something to be tough for someone with +25 to a skill, you need to set the DC to 35 or higher.

Don't "want to make something though for a +25 guy". Simply make a skill check as difficult as the situation warrants without regard to how good your PCs are in the relevant skill. You will notice that those extreme DCs don't come up that often. That allows less skilled PCs to still participate and makes diversifying skills more attractive instead of specializing.

they find a room with a really thin beam as the only way to cross a room. There was no way to actively avoid it since they didn't know it was there until they arrived at the room.

But there are other solutions than just "using balance" on it. They can apply magic, climb down and up again on the other side, throw the halfling with a rope attached, go out of the dungeon, chop some trees and build a crude bridge, etc.

I want it to be dangerous enough that there is risk involved but easy enough that even the people bad at balancing have a good enough chance to succeed that they'd think of trying it.

For what result? When it is dangerous for everyone, then someone will fail and die. The same will happen when some PCs have no chance to succeed in balancing over it right from the start (actually, that might save them their character as they don't even try and look for other solutions). The only thing that changes is how anxious the players are while rolling.
Also, "not railroading" is one of the perquisites for my suggestions, and by saying "I want it to be dangerous enough that there is risk involved" you are in fact railroading as you do not allow for an alternative approach and don't set the DC according to the challenge but according to the PC level. Its "Balance or Bust".

But, that's not the issue. The issue is 2 PC's can swim like fish and 2 PC's drown. Or 2 PC's can climb like mountain goats and 2 PC's have trouble with stairs.

When you allow skill levels to be so broad, you can pretty easily wind up in situations where one (or more) PC automatically succeeds at checks that another PC will automatically fail at.

Why didn't the good PCs didn't help the ones which have troubles by climbing up and letting down ropes and carrying them while swimming? Why didn't the ones bad at something prepare to cover their weakness?

But, for the majority of actions, particularly actions that are fairly stock and trade for adventurers, they don't need specialized training (although that can certainly help) and even an unskilled person should be able to do it once in a while.

Yes, most of the DCs the PCs will encounter will fall in the range that everyone can succeed while specialists can do it automatically. The situations where you need to be a specialist to succeed and where everyone has to participate are far and few between (unless you use 4E style scaling DCs according to PC level). And such situations can often be avoided with little effort.

 

[Hussar]

Yes, most of the DCs the PCs will encounter will fall in the range that everyone can succeed while specialists can do it automatically. The situations where you need to be a specialist to succeed and where everyone has to participate are far and few between (unless you use 4E style scaling DCs according to PC level). And such situations can often be avoided with little effort.

This is not my experience at all. At 1st level you are paddling a barge across a fairly placid lake. At 15th level, you are sailing in the Abyss.

This is not an edition thing it's a play thing. My games tend to change pretty radically across levels which means skills do too.

At low levels the party has to sneak past the two inept guards. At high levels the mad wizard in the tower is using guardian demons.

If DCs in your game are that static, I wonder how many levels you are used to playing.

 

[Li Shenron]

This is not an edition thing it's a play thing. My games tend to change pretty radically across levels which means skills do too.

That's how I feel too... and the reason why I am not completely sure bounded accuracy (or d20) works well with skills.

Something similar could be said about combat, however it's not quite the same.

Someone can say that at 1st levels the PCs are fighting one ogre and at 15th they are fighting one huge dragon. And bounded accuracy helps keeping ogres relevant even at 15th levels, although you might need a fairly large band of them and not just one, to challenge the party.

But bounded accuracy is all about the bonus spread to d20 rolls, and in a combat that ogre or dragon is going to take many such rolls before defeating it (usually a few round, in each of which many PC takes one or more attacks), while skills are often a yes/no single roll. Furthermore, IMHO having a monsters that cannot (yet) be hit does not carry the same feeling as a challenge that cannot (yet) be won, such as a cliff that cannot (yet) be climbed, a raging river that cannot (yet) be crossed, or a lock that cannot (yet) be picked. Perhaps it's just because most players assume that when they meet a monster they have to fight it, or at best the only other option is usually to run away, while failed or unwinnable challenges normally only prompt the PCs to make a new plan. There is no problem in saying "there's no chance you can climb this castle's walls at this level" because climbing the castles walls was never necessarily the only possible plan. It feels a bit different instead to say "there's no chance you can hit this monster" (I am not saying this should never happen, I am just highlighting the difference in feel). Incidentally this is probably the reason why automatic hits have been in the game for ages for attack rolls, but never for skills!

 

[Derren]

This is not my experience at all. At 1st level you are paddling a barge across a fairly placid lake. At 15th level, you are sailing in the Abyss.

Assuming that you mean the plane, what makes water bodies in the Abyss harder to sail than on the prime?

 

[Ichneumon]

Assuming that you mean the plane, what makes water bodies in the Abyss harder to sail than on the prime?

Water on the Prime doesn't hate you.