D&D 5E good things, bad things and things you would change about 5e

[mrpopstar]

No.

It sounds like he's referring to a combination of expertise + reliable talent, where you end up with a rogue potentially having +15 to a given skill and the inability to ever end up with less than a 10 on the die.

Passive checks are the only kind of ability check that I'm familiar with that doesn't involve any die rolls, so I was confused.

I don't think it's a problem that an 11th-level rogue can reliably succeed at a hard task if his expertise is relevant.

 

[mrpopstar]

I would get rid of the Perception skill, keep the concept of passive Wisdom as a representation of awareness, and I'd allow elves and rangers to add their proficiency bonus.

Also, I would add a rabbit to the Monster Manual and list of familiars.

 

[Edwin Suijkerbuijk]

One thin that isen't working out as intended when to comes to the 5th editon rules is inpiration.
Most groups i have seen just don't bother with inpiration as written.

It requires the Dm to track 5 things per character to grand inspiration.
getting inspiration doesen't realy work as a motivator as advantage is already easy to get trough other means.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Yeah, but you don't get that until 11th level. So much of your playing time isn't anywhere near automatic checks. And I'd like to think that a someone that accomplished (11th level plus devote all your choices to maxing out that) should let you auto succeed at hard or easier tasks. (Incidentally, it's 23 as the highest you can get at 11th level, 25 needs you to be level 17). So until level 17, you can still fail very hard checks, and nearly impossible checks still fail unless you roll a 13 or higher on the d20 (which is what? 60% of the time?) even at level 20 with everything else maxed out for the most skilled class there is.

I picked an easy example. Also, there are some uncommon magic items (as in, the most available ones) that massively exacerbate this issue. Gloves of theivery, luck stones, etc, all accelerate the point at which DCs become wonky.

The other real issue where expertise does wonky things is opposed rolls. Expertised stealth on a rogue pretty much means almost nothing sees them with passive perception by as soon as 8th level. This may be more the fact that passive perception was ignored by the designers, but expertise makes it worse. By the time a rogue hits 11, there's little besides a few angels, beholderkin, and ancient dragons and adult dragons that will notice him at his worst. But he has a much better than even chance to beat those few.

I guess what I'm saying is that I disagree with Ovinomancer in that a DM shouldn't even bother setting challenges.

If it's an automatic success, why would you disagree? I mean, sure, for things that there's a chance of failure, but that wasn't what I was talking about.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

yes i agree completely which is why i have expanded the regular 6 stats in my system to 12
with 6 combined stat titles:

Brawn = strength + size
Fortitude = Endurance + vitality
Agility = Reflex + dexterity
Intelligence = Knowledge + Cunning
Wisdom = Willpower + Sense
Presence = Charm + Confidence

by having 12 stats i find it prevents min maxing too much.
it also allows things like agile bruce lee type characters to add Power (strength + reflex) to damage instead of Brawn or in rare cases their lethality (knowledge+strength) for a sherlock homes style (downey's)

I don't know that my advice would help you much here. One of my biggest criticisms of 5E (aside from healing) is that the stats are too similar, and it's hard to figure out which one applies in any given situation - things like Perception keying off of Wisdom, while Investigation goes from Intelligence, so whether a given check is one or the other could be the difference between rolling at +20 and rolling at -1.

I also feel like a lot of stats are too easy to ignore, like how a Dex-based fighter can swing a scimitar and completely ignore their Strength score. It would make more sense, to me, if all melee attacks were governed by Strength. And for the same reason, if spell save DCs were all based on Int or Charisma or whatever, then that would also solve a lot of problems.

a lot of my system involves taking an average of 2 stats right now, each skill is different e.g. swim =strength+endurance climb = dexterity+strength HP= size+vitality etc

As a general guideline for game design, it's better to avoid anything that takes an average of two stats, because it makes it too hard to improve that thing later on. If your Swim is equal to the average of your Strength and Endurance, then it will be a pain to improve your Swim skill later on, because you could improve your Strength by +1 and your Swim might not change at all.

One way around that is to make your bonus equal to the sum of two stats, so your bonus to Swim would equal the sum of your Strength and Endurance, and improving either one would automatically improve the skill by the same amount. The limitation there is that your bonus to the skill check will always be larger than the bonus to either constituent stat check (e.g. it is way easier to hit a DC 17 on a Swim check than on a Strength check or Endurance check), but that's not an issue if everything you roll is a skill check and there aren't any checks where you only add a single stat.

 

[mrpopstar]

I picked an easy example. Also, there are some uncommon magic items (as in, the most available ones) that massively exacerbate this issue. Gloves of theivery, luck stones, etc, all accelerate the point at which DCs become wonky.

Magic items are certainly exceptions.

The other real issue where expertise does wonky things is opposed rolls. Expertised stealth on a rogue pretty much means almost nothing sees them with passive perception by as soon as 8th level. This may be more the fact that passive perception was ignored by the designers, but expertise makes it worse. By the time a rogue hits 11, there's little besides a few angels, beholderkin, and ancient dragons and adult dragons that will notice him at his worst. But he has a much better than even chance to beat those few.

I don't think it's a problem that an 11th-level rogue who focuses on stealth can expect to win a contest where his expertise is relevant.

Numbers might feel wonky, but is the narrative served?

 

[Ovinomancer]

That's not necessarily true. The concept of bounded accuracy doesn't inherently include a specific value of accuracy that is the maximum boundary, nor does it inherently include a mandate that all forms of accuracy (attack vs. AC, saving throw vs. DC, and ability check vs. DC) be set to the same maximum boundary.

So the "double proficiency" features only actually break bounded accuracy if the designer didn't intend the level of accuracy that they give to be possible for the type of accuracy they give. And since there are no "double proficiency" features that add to attack rolls, saving throws, or save DCs, I think it might well be deliberate that ability checks can reach the level of accuracy that you view a "break."

You mean that expertise, which specifically apply to skill checks, doesn't have anything to do with the bounded accuracy assumptions for AC or saving throws? Wow, had not realized that.

Every one of the things I referenced only deal with skills, which, coincidentally, are the only things that have static, objectively set DC thresholds. So, yeah, I'm quite aware that the issues I'm discussion don't have anything to do with ACs or Spell DCs. And, regardless of whether or not designers intended it, the break in concept between a objective DC and the ability to easily surpass what is supposed to be very hard or impossible is a problem. I do not think that the effects of expertise were well tested in the mid to high tiers of play alongside the DC thresholds. A 13th level rogue with a single uncommon magic item can pick every lock in the game without having to roll (assuming a fixed upper bound of DC 30, which I don't agree with but have been vigorously challenged for even contemplating otherwise). Without the magic item, he picks all DC 25 or less locks without a roll. It's hard to justify the sudden appearance of massively complex (and expensive) locks everywhere I want to slow a party, so my choice is generally to stop putting in locks for the rogue to pick or ignore that there are locks with a mere narrative gloss. At level 20, I'd have no problem with that, but 13?

And then you get into contested rolls. Expertise in stealth murders the vast majority of passive perceptions. This is even without reliable talent. A 9th level character with an 18 DEX has a Stealth of +12 with expertise. This beats a passive of 12 without a roll. Add a 20 DEX and a luckstone and it's auto success against 14 passive perceptions. That's a large chunk of the monster manual, without a roll.

Expertise on athletics paired with grappling is also broken (given the most things are even proficient in athletics).

Almost all of these issues become much more tolerable if you nix expertise and other double proficiency bonuses. Just swapping it for advantage makes things work much better because it doesn't mean you suddenly get to do things you couldn't before or that really hard things become easier, but that things that you should be good at doing you do far more consistently. Which is what expertise to represent.

That all comes down to preference.

You mean that, in a thread asking for preferences and dislikes, my answer is my preference? Wonders, will they ever cease?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Magic items are certainly exceptions.

Yes, but the exceptions are exacerbated because the enhance an already enhanced baseline.

I don't think it's a problem that an 11th-level rogue who focuses on stealth can expect to win a contest where his expertise is relevant.

Numbers might feel wonky, but is the narrative served?

When you can sneak through Hell undetected because your minimum roll beats everything's passive perception, no, I don't think so. Without expertise, a character can still be excellent at hiding, and has a good chance to beat those passives. Expertise makes it a lock, especially when paired with reliable skill.

And that's the thing, I've looked at all of these issues -- expertise paired with reliable skill, expertise paired with magic items, expertise against non-proficient opposed checks, and the thing that is common is expertise. Look at any build that does incredible things with skills and it features expertise. At that point, I began to question if the root issue wasn't expertise. A swap to advantage on that skill vice doubling proficiency is still an excellent boost, and meets the narrative of an expert almost never failing routine or hard tasks in their field, and having a much better chance at the truly difficult than the non-expert. The doubling of the bonus just leads to wonky numbers and discounts the objectively set DC numbers too much.

So, I suppose you could just get rid of objectively set DCs, but I really like those as opposed to the constant slide of 4e checks or the runaway DCs of 3e. So I aim for expertise.

 

[Sacrosanct]

If it's an automatic success, why would you disagree? I mean, sure, for things that there's a chance of failure, but that wasn't what I was talking about.

Perhaps I misread. I came away with the interpretation that you were saying "Don't bother ever coming up with DCs in 5e BA because the rogue will always win anyway, so what's the point." And I was just pointing out how it takes a lot to get that point (auto succeeding) and even then at high levels, it's still not guaranteed because a high level PC isn't going to be looking at lower DCs anyway. The take 10 thing is weird, because it's a big gap between "always succeed" and "has a chance not to." For example, you still need to roll the d20. If taking ten gives you a minimum of 25, then a DC of 25 is 100% success, but a DC of 26 goes all the way down to 55% because you have to roll an 11 or higher. A difference of 1 DC can have a big impact.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Perhaps I misread. I came away with the interpretation that you were saying "Don't bother ever coming up with DCs in 5e BA because the rogue will always win anyway, so what's the point." And I was just pointing out how it takes a lot to get that point (auto succeeding) and even then at high levels, it's still not guaranteed because a high level PC isn't going to be looking at lower DCs anyway. The take 10 thing is weird, because it's a big gap between "always succeed" and "has a chance not to." For example, you still need to roll the d20. If taking ten gives you a minimum of 25, then a DC of 25 is 100% success, but a DC of 26 goes all the way down to 55% because you have to roll an 11 or higher.

Yep, it's weird. I'm not a fan of that mechanic either, but less so that expertise.

As a matter of fact, most of the mechanics that annoy me are in the rogue. Expertise (although not unique to rogues), reliable skill, and dash as an always available bonus action. I've made the case for the first, you just stated the case against the second, and for the last, I see no reason why rogues should be able to outrun everyone until the monk gets enough bonus movement to equal 50% of his base.

So, fixes:
Expertise: change to advantage
Reliable skill: change to 'if you attempt at this skill fails to succeed, you may reroll the attempt' This differs from advantage in that it works on even disad rolls, and is after the fact.
Dash as a bonus action: only if you do not dash with your action. This changes rogues from being the ones able to run the fastest to the ones that can do stuff while they run.