D&D 5E Is 5E Special

Parmandur

Book-Friend
I can see you're repeating this, but it's meaningless without specifics, and it's clear that even if it's true, it's based on bad design assumptions.

You've totally failed to counter my argument re: skills. I will repeat it, but unless you can counter it, your point fails.

Full casters have the same number of skills as a Fighter - or more (depending on the Full caster), and also have better stats for using skills (INT/WIS/CHA instead of STR/DEX/CON). Even if we ignore spells entirely, full casters are already ahead because of that.
The specifics on Spell design are in the DMG.

Spell casters have the same number of Skills, but nobody can have all of the Skills. Different party members get their moment to shine based on their Skill choices. Whi h, yes, is DM dependent, but that's the nature of D&D.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Parmandur

Book-Friend
I just want to talk about the d20 for a moment (and kinda why 11th level rogue is SOOO AMAZING) even with lowish DC of 9, if you have a +1 you can roll a 1-7... once DCs (and I find this an issue more with saves but also with skills/tools) start hitting 15+ that die is WAY too important.

a PC at level 1 untrained in a skill/save/tool but havign a +2 stat is pretty good... even a trained +3 stat is only a +5 but come level 10 those same too now have +2 vs +7 and that should be a big gap... heck lets throw in an expertise and +4 stat to make it +2,+7, and +12 what is this supposed to represent?

+2 is a novice, +7 is someone pretty good and knowladgeable, and +12 is pretty much a master of the craft... but the variable of 1-20 means that a dc 17 is hittable by the novice, 50/50 for someone pretty good and 75% for the master of the craft... from a game point that sounds fair... BUT narratively it is NUTS.

I am a novice maybe even slightly above novice in many things (technology, science, math, accounting, history, driving, making armor, and even basketball) but my odds of doing better then a master who spent years on any of the fields is small enough it might as well be 0... even in my prime I am not beating Michael Jorden at Horse... even if he spots me H.O.R.
Maybe in a VERY rare occasion I MIGHT know a history fact better then my buddy who was a History Major... but not that often.
Dude, this is what I am talking about. Narratively, the game offers a specific tool for this: gating Skill checks by Proficiency. A Wizard without Religion might be smart, but the 12 Int Paladin can make a Religion check that the DM restricts by Akill training that the Wizard cannot even attempt. This sort of Skill check design is all over D&D these days. Give each character a time to strut their thing.
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
I wonder if with the new Tasha's maneuvers if you can make a battle master as good as a 1/3 caster out of combat... I know you can't with champion but maybe with maneuvers (that should be on every fighter maybe every fighter and rogue)
A Wizard without Spell slots outside of combat cannot make an Athletics check like a Champion can. Outside of combat, narrative balance is the order of the day.
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
and an artificer with tinker tools has 1/2 caster of spells, and expertise in tinker tools that can open the door too... it's not like the rogue is teh only one with skills...

heck a wizard, warlock, or cleric (or god fobid druid) with the crimanl background has that too.
The Rogue is the only one who can guarantee a 20+ roll in their areas of focus every time.
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
Whereas, for me, "just pick the option that has literal spellcasting or disguised spellcasting, 4head" is not acceptable, at all. I am very glad that such options exist, because they are great for people who like that sort of thing.

But they cannot, not even in principle, satisfy the desire for "person who, by mighty thews and deft hand and skill with weapon alone, slays the terrible dragon." An extremely common, well-supported character archetype in myth and literature. Indeed, frequently the hero of the story. That D&D fails to support this archetype as an equal participant has always confused me.


I appreciate that you are trying to extend an olive branch here, but the difference between EK and RK is not relevant to me. They are both magic users. One uses spells, the other uses runes, but they are both magic users. I want to be able to play a Fighter that does not use magic but keeps up with the Wizard or Druid or Cleric that can drop 25 spells a day.


And Battlemaster itself falls short on multiple fronts. (As Ruin Explorer noted, spellcasting can keep up with the damage of Fighters while also having spells left over to do other things that are simply impossible for the Fighter.)


Show me the numbers. Unless and until we can actually critique the numbers, my only response on this is, "Objection: Hearsay," to quote the recent meme.

Because frankly the few references you've made sound like they ludicrously under-value the benefit of spells. E.g. I believe you said hold person was valued at 3d10, which would be hilarious if it weren't so infuriating: a successful hold person is worth the number of attacks the target cannot make because of the spell, plus the number the PCs can land against the target (because it doesn't get extra saving throws for being attacked), which have advantage if made in melee.

Let's say the target has a 40% chance to make the save (meaning, the spell has a 60% chance to work, comparable to hitting with an attack.) Mathematically, that works out to an expected value of (somewhat surprisingly) exactly 1.5 average enemy turns under the effect. So, you negate on average 1.5× the creature's average damage, and get 1.5× the average damage (accounting for hit rate) of the party, with melee characters factoring in advantage. And that's supposed to be 3d10. Even at level 3, when hold person first comes online, that is obviously an extremely low-ball estimate of the spell's effects. Which would certainly be par for the course of 5e design.
The numbers are in the Dungeon Masters Guide. My personal experience and the published math suggest that you are overvaluing these magic effects as elements of game balance.
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
I've dealt with the skill issue by changing my philosophy of skill checks. If something is painfully obvious that you will succeed, no DC on it. If something should be so hard a novice can't do it, the DC is over 20.

Ability (skill) checks are the most uninteresting thing in D&D.
I mean...you.realize that's what the DMG says to do, right...?

Also, in my experience, people love getting the chance to get creative with Skill rolls. Hardly a boring aspect for people I know.
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
what I also found is the that second edition was a reaction to the complainants about the first. the third one was in reaction to complaints (some I REALLY DISAGGREE WITH) to the 2nd... so of course I am going to complain I want this changed... it has worked before.
It has worked with broadly based complaints...which is what WotC captures with their surveys. And we can seem them responding in products like Tashor Monsters of the Multiverse.
 



Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top