It's not the lack of guaranteed success, it's the claw game type odds with possible near wish level payoffs distorting the pressure to use what is basically a ribbon.
New UA one D&D play test document Dec 1st.
- Thread starter darjr
- Start date
A solution to this would be to not allow clerics to use Divine Intervention when not in a crisis situation.
Expertise only exists on skill checks (or technically ability checks with skill proficiency added). Being able to reliably succeed at those is the opposite of a problem. Hardison doesn't fail when trying to hack a system. Parker doesn't fail when picking a lock.
In RuneQuest, an Initiate of a cult could ask for Divine Intervention, and try to roll d100 equal to or below their Power stat (3d6ish but there were methods of increasing it somewhat). If they succeeded, they would get some really strong effect, but their Power would also be permanently reduced by the d100 roll as you sacrifice part of your soul to your patron deity.
Micah Sweet
Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
So what? Gambling is fun. If the price of throwing the dice every now and then is losing a turn if you decide to do it in combat, I think its a small one.
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
No. It's a spell like ability that has a chance of failure, like many other powerful spells and spell like abilities. Right now it's an overly large chance of failure. That should be changed or at least modified like I suggest to make it reasonable. It doesn't need to work with no chance of failure.
Thats a good start, but since its Divine Intervention and not just one spell of Xth level or lower, I would want there to be room for things not replicated easily with a spell.
Use the spell levels as a guide to power level for balance, sure, but dont stop there.
Blue
Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
This question at hand is by the rules do the DCs get inflated so that characters without expertise are not able to meet them. The answer is no. Everything else you wrote is not germane to the question at hand, especially the last part where you say that DC list on page 124 of the PHB "can't exist". They very obviously DO exist. If you have a problem with them, that's a separate topic.
I disagree. Attempting to limit discussion about how 5e avoids part of a specific & well known 3.5 problem to exclude mention of how it preserves the other half of that very same problem pretty much spotlights how severe the problem is. There is a great post over on thealexandrian about it here
1D&D: The 5E Skill System Is Bad
One of the most talked about changes in the One D&D playtest is the decision to make all natural 1’s auto-failures and all natural 20’s auto-successes.My first gut reaction to this was:
thealexandrian.net
It's not just about the extremes for me. A DC30 is described as nearly impossible. An expert can potentially have a 50% chance of success but only at high levels and in a primary stat. That in itself might seem fine, but it feels a bit too easy if you ladle a cantrip or bardic die on top. Still, it's more of a problem for the more common extremely difficult DC20 checks that become almost impossible to fail.
For me, the issue with skill checks is the focus on pass or fail rather than total failure, partial failure, sucess, and total success. I think a natural 1 should always be total failure. Natural 20 should never be a total failure but might not be a success.
I would reduce expertise bonuses to +1 to +3 (overall bonus range of +8 to +14 at 20 depending on stats) but grant the new category of miraculous success which allows you to use inspiration to turn a natural 20 into a total success even if your total score falls below the DC.
I think I would prefer expertise to provide an RP benefit over simply boosted skills.
FitzTheRuke
Legend
Hmm... yes, I guess that's the direct definition. I was more thinking that it's "along the lines" of that sort of thing, in that WHAT IT DOES is entirely up to the DM. Again, I kind of like what it does story-wise, but I'm not at all there with the implementation. I guess that while I like the idea of it, I don't think it's mechanically a good ability.
Blue
Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
There was no attempt to limit a discussion - that was the discussion that was being had: can the rules handle it. You are attempting to expand the discussion with points beyond the rules, which are not relevant for the discussion.
It's like if there was a discussion if horses or bicycles were faster over long distances, and you insist on talking about trains. Keeping something on-topic is acceptable.
No there was a statement that you only had the echoes of 3.x if the gm goes against raw to bump the DCs but you get those echoes with strict RAW, pointing out how is not expanding the discussion so much as correcting a needlessly narrow focus on the type of echoes. The gm does not need to bump the DCs because there are too many ways to lhsmmer through the poorly arranged boundaries of bounded accuracy and one of those ways is to simply level a pc over time beyond the narrow band of levels BA was tuned for. IME that band seems to be tier one & early tier two.
UngeheuerLich
Legend
Bounded accuracy works well in 5e.
Expertise is in a good spot.
It is just as in 3.x. Don't raise DCs because you as a DM don't like the rogue succeeding without magic.
Going back to ADnD, there was a big misconception about rogues skills.
They were not the only ones to move silently or listen at doors or climb. Everyone could move silently by rolling under dex, listen on doors by rolling under wis. Or climbing by rolling under str.
The rogue had a slim chance to do it, when it seemed impossible to do the task.
Transferred to 5e (and 3e btw.) it means, that you need to keep the DC low enough that everyone has a chance to succeed. But the rogue (or other expert with good stats) usually succeeds and might even succeed on a hard or very hard task.
The offender is not expertise, but the way, reliable talent is framed. I think, it should have been that your floor is 5 or 8. Or the way the barbarian ability works: substitute str or dex score for your roll total.
Expertise is in a good spot.
It is just as in 3.x. Don't raise DCs because you as a DM don't like the rogue succeeding without magic.
Going back to ADnD, there was a big misconception about rogues skills.
They were not the only ones to move silently or listen at doors or climb. Everyone could move silently by rolling under dex, listen on doors by rolling under wis. Or climbing by rolling under str.
The rogue had a slim chance to do it, when it seemed impossible to do the task.
Transferred to 5e (and 3e btw.) it means, that you need to keep the DC low enough that everyone has a chance to succeed. But the rogue (or other expert with good stats) usually succeeds and might even succeed on a hard or very hard task.
The offender is not expertise, but the way, reliable talent is framed. I think, it should have been that your floor is 5 or 8. Or the way the barbarian ability works: substitute str or dex score for your roll total.
Similar Threads
