First off, great post! Loved it! Two thumbs up!
First, the d20 is too swingy. IMO I think skill should trump randomness, so using something non-linear like 2d10 (even for attacks) would be better.
I definitely remember observing the huge difference in feel between, say, AD&D and GURPS (which uses a 3d6 resolution system, as no doubt some of you are aware) back in the 80s and 90s.We have tried this and we tried 3d6 and noticed, that 1d20 randomness is a feature, not a bug. D&D's main attraction is, that everyone can try to take part in everything. With 3d6, a 3 point difference in skill can mean: don't bother trying.
I can imagine scenarios where you would like that, for example heist scenarios, where you might have tools to reduce DC and where you want specialists that need to do certain things. But as a general rule it feels so much disabling instead of enabling roleplaying.
This in practice didn't matter much; the magic weapons were extremely heavily weighted towards longswords with greatswords in second (as in something like twice as many magic swords as all other magic weapons combined and 70% longswords, 25% greatswords, and 5% other - with scimitars coming under other weapons). And clerics, of course, couldn't wield edged weapons. Also longswords and greatswords were the best because of the extra damage they got against large creatures while cleric weapons got the same or sometimes less damage when attacking large or larger.
It is a bad feature, IMO.We have tried this and we tried 3d6 and noticed, that 1d20 randomness is a feature, not a bug.
Everyone still can, you just have a more realistic appreciation for skill and ability with a non-linear system.D&D's main attraction is, that everyone can try to take part in everything
It is a bad feature, IMO.
Everyone still can, you just have a more realistic appreciation for skill and ability with a non-linear system.
Here's a reason why I don't like it:
A contested check between two creatures: #1 is level 17 with +5 ability, for +11 total. #2 is level 1 with +0 ability for +2 total.
#2 has a 13.75% chance of out-right winning plus a 2.75% of a tie. This would be like a person who recently learned how to play chess vs. a grand-master.
Even if you use expertise and make #1 a total of +17, there is still a 2.50% #1 will lose.
There really should not be any chance and IMO the number should show that. Yeah, yeah, "But the DM only calls for a check when the outcome is in doubt blah blah blah and such..." Phooey! That is crappy and lazy game design.
Now, use 3d6 instead of d20. Even with +17 if #1 rolled 3, for a total of 20, and #2 rolled 18 with +2 also for a total of 20, would be a stalemate. The chances of the most unlikely outcome would be barely more than 0.002% or about 1 in 46000!!!
The other option in such cases is to do a skill-challenge type thing instead of a single roll. Perhaps like death saves with 3 success indicating victory and 3 failures is a loss. IMO 5E should have more things like this. However, for the above example, it would have to be 5 or even 7 successes/fails, not just 3.
D&D isn't the problem. 5E is IMO. And Bounded Accuracy in particular. It is a useless mechanic and didn't solve any problem in the game, simply shifted where the problem was.Why exactly do you play DnD?
Yeah, I know, I suggested a series of contested rolls.For your chess example: maybe it is not one contested roll for the whole game, but it is one for the opening, one for the mid game and one for the end game.
OneDnD.Maybe you don't have to do contested rolls (note, how OneDnD seems to avoid contested rolls), but you need to do rolls against DC15 until you accumulate 3 successes or failures... And suddenly a +5 advantage will help.
Yeah, I did that, too.Then you coud assume that the grand master has expertise, not just proficiency.
Even if you use expertise and make #1 a total of +17, there is still a 2.50% #1 will lose.
Why? Implying advantage would help, but the other player could have similar skills (albeit without as much benefit with having a much lower bonus).Maybe proficiency in chess game and expertise in investigation and deception and insight.
D&D isn't the problem. 5E is IMO. And Bounded Accuracy in particular. It is a useless mechanic and didn't solve any problem in the game, simply shifted where the problem was.
I love D&D and have for over 40 years. It is why I have stuck with it as long as I have. I very rarely ever play any other RPG. Unfortunately, the groups I play and run all started with 5E and are much younger players who are used to the "video game effect" of instant reward/satisfaction.
Yeah, I know, I suggested a series of contested rolls.
OneDnD.Ugh. Only making matters worse....
Yeah, I did that, too.
Why? Implying advantage would help, but the other player could have similar skills (albeit without as much benefit with having a much lower bonus).
The die should not outstrip experience, but that is precisely what bounded accuracy has done and leads to some ludicrous results.
Two rogues are attempting to pick a lock with DC 15. R1 has +11, R2 has +2.
R1 has a 15% chance of failing. R2 has a 40% chance of success. The probability of both those events happening is 6% (more than 1 in 20).
I'm sorry, but there is no way a 17th level PC with DEX 20 should have a 6% chance of failing when a 1st level PC with DEX 10 can succeed.
Sure, there are optional rules for auto-success as well, but all these options exist in the game because the designers know the numbers don't work to take care of such things on their own.
The threat of those dangers is part of what made the game exciting. When you faced a creature or spell with SoD effect or level draining, you knew it was a serious threat and had to act/plan accordingly.A bit sad, but even if I started with ADnD, I would never go back, as failing a save and die is just no fun.
Back then we somehow found ways to game the system and not constantly die. Playing with so many house rules, that the game worked.
Fun back then, but not so much anymore.
I am not just talking about "better players vs. worse players". I am talking about the BEST you can possibly be against someone who just knows the rules and how to play (basic proficiency without any ability modifier). There is a big difference.You know, better players in chess can lose vs worse players. Since I am not bad at playing chess, playing in a league and knowing hiw elo rating works, I can say, that even a grandmaster can lose against a player who is quite a bit worse. In blitz chess it is a lot more likely than in a long game. I don't want to bore you with details.
You can easily model it, if you think this is fun in your D&D game with a roll every minute of the game and you will see, that the statistical advantage of a +2 bonus will eventually inevitably (99.9% chance) lead to the better player winning (if they are better enough).
Ok, back to it!So, back to the actual problem of a level 17 character and a level 0 character succeeding at the same task. This is the feature, not a bug.
Why should someone with no wizard training be less good in juggling or balancing? What does having being a level 17 wizard to do with hiding?
This is just bollocks.
Snip.
Reading this, I would posit you're giving too much weight to skills and asking/expecting them to produce a steeper power curve than is really desirable. One of 5e's best traits is that it flattened the overall power curve from what 4e and - even more so - 3e had, back to more like what 0-1-2e ran with. You seem to want to fight this trend.Everyone still can, you just have a more realistic appreciation for skill and ability with a non-linear system.
Here's a reason why I don't like it:
A contested check between two creatures: #1 is level 17 with +5 ability, for +11 total. #2 is level 1 with +0 ability for +2 total.
#2 has a 13.75% chance of out-right winning plus a 2.75% of a tie. This would be like a person who recently learned how to play chess vs. a grand-master.
Even if you use expertise and make #1 a total of +17, there is still a 2.50% #1 will lose.
There really should not be any chance and IMO the number should show that.
Which is deep into "why bother?" territory.Yeah, yeah, "But the DM only calls for a check when the outcome is in doubt blah blah blah and such..." Phooey! That is crappy and lazy game design.
Now, use 3d6 instead of d20. Even with +17 if #1 rolled 3, for a total of 20, and #2 rolled 18 with +2 also for a total of 20, would be a stalemate. The chances of the most unlikely outcome would be barely more than 0.002% or about 1 in 46000!!!
You're both right.You think save or die is fun. [...] You think it is tension, that every roll can kill you instantly, and preparing accordingly is the only way to do it right.
I say: scry buf teleport is the most stupid kind of gameplay ever. And if I as a DM use it against players, they would cry foul.
taking into consideration that almost nobody IRL is considered level 5 or higher, and that an ability score of 20 is typically considered outright superhuman, i'd say a +11 is beyond a grandmaster, even when factoring for expertise.It's not a chess newbie vs a grandmaster, it's a chess-club regular vs the top player in the club. Taking a skill in something makes you better at it, sure, but doesn't and shouldn't make you perfect.
Reading this, I would posit you're giving too much weight to skills and asking/expecting them to produce a steeper power curve than is really desirable. One of 5e's best traits is that it flattened the overall power curve from what 4e and - even more so - 3e had, back to more like what 0-1-2e ran with. You seem to want to fight this trend.
It's not a chess newbie vs a grandmaster, it's a chess-club regular vs the top player in the club. Taking a skill in something makes you better at it, sure, but doesn't and shouldn't make you perfect.
That, and one of the pure joys of D&D for me is the chance of the upset result. Take that away and it gets boring pretty fast.
Which is deep into "why bother?" territory.
It's a long time since I played much chess but I seem to remember the number of draws was somewhat higher than 1-in-20.Also. A 1 in 20 chance for a draw seems a bad way to model chess. So a straight contested roll to decide who wins seems dumb.
Correct, I said...1. Basic proficiency is more than just knowing how to move the pieces.
Proficiency means you have played, learned, done whatever and are competent. You can "play chess" by learning the moves and just using INT modifier (no "proficiency" for games: chess). Proficiency is more than that, but not really a lot more since the base bonus is +2.someone who just knows the rules and how to play (basic proficiency without any ability modifier)
You said it: DnD is not the best game to model chess... or really much else. It isn't a simulation game (especially they way 5E goes...).I am not sure, if DnD is the best game to model a chess game, but if I play vs magnus Carlson, i will only make good moves, but after 30 moves, he somehow has improved his position so much, that I will lose.
Speaking in game terms, we for a regular game we will take 30 turns in 2 hours of time per person. If we use the play chess action every 6 seconds, we will have made 10 rolls per minute each, so 2400 rolls. Even 30 rolls would be sufficient to make a +2 bonus difference matter.
But as I said, I am not sure, that DnD wants to model playing chess.
But a single roll in no way reflects how the game is played. So you might to think about your preferences.
Stop putting words into my mouth, ok? (or, more precisely, thoughts into my head?Regarding the rest:
You call it a bug. I call it a feature.
You think save or die is fun. I don't think so. You think it is tension, that every roll can kill you instantly, and preparing accordingly is the only way to do it right.
Are you even reading my posts? I SAID ALL THAT ALREADY:Oh. And regarding the wizard who does not have stalth on their class list. We have backgrounds for 8 years now, which grant half of the wizard's skill. So with their urchin or criminal background, of course they have stealth.
So, using your examples, wizard training has nothing to do with juggling or balancing (in fact, neither sleight of hand? nor acrobatics are wizard skills, so a wizard PC would get those from race or background or a feat maybe).