D&D (2024) Rogue's Been in an Awkward Place, And This Survey Might Be Our Last Chance to Let WotC Know.


log in or register to remove this ad

tetrasodium

Legend
Supporter
Epic
There is a difference between "can handle math" versus "wants to handle math" during a narrative immersion.
That's a completely dfifferent topi c. Stating that you don't want to handle math that honeybees can manage is a distraction at best because it has nothing to do with the undeniable fact that (dis)advantage is entirely incapable of scaling beyond one single player doing something to help a second . As a result of of that obvious limitation (dis)advantage actively discourages a third player from attempting to proactively contribute beyond some variation of "yea me too" no matter how descriptive that declaration is.
The DM has total discretion over skill adjudication, per RAW.

If there is an unusual situation where there is much room between Advantage and Auto Success, the DM can say the DC is "Hard" instead of "Nearly Impossible", or whatever rerank seems appropriate, in addition to the Advantage. I have never needed somewhere between Advantage and Autosuccess, yet.
No no no. (dis)advantage fails for party collaboration the instant there are more than two players in the party. You are crashing further and further into the bold bits of the post that originally started this back and forth.
Agreed, realistically in actual play deploying traps as a 5e gm just feels like a waste of everyone's time. I say that as a gm who has in the past used them for amazing results like this, but that 100% depends on forcibly teaching the players to take the metaphorical baton and run with it with zero support from the system&rulebooks for either side of the gm screen. The whole thing collapses into a multi mile car pileup or an annoying rail roaded QuickTime event where the gm tells a story if the players don't confidently take off like Usain bolt without stumbling even a tad the second they get offered the baton by their gm. Back in3.xI could tell them they guess it's an insane DC & show them the dm's best friend entry to get the ball honestly rolling with interest, but doing that with 5e tends to provoke a "I want to play 5e not some other edition, wotc playtested what's fun & must have had a reason to leave that out"* flavor of active willful refusal

* I put that in quotes because it's very close to what I had a player once say when I tried it after shooting down "I want to roll x".
It does not matter if the DM has discretion when the system does nothing to support that GM in getting all of their players to proactively collaborate as a party when the party has more than two players in it. (dis)advantage is a less useful replacement for taking 10/taking 20 without the useful narrative options everyone at the table knew those granted the GM but it's billed as a replacement for DM's best friend & bonus types or skill challenges.
 

Yaarel

He Mage
That's a completely dfifferent topi c. Stating that you don't want to handle math that honeybees can manage is a distraction at best because it has nothing to do with the undeniable fact that (dis)advantage is entirely incapable of scaling beyond one single player doing something to help a second . As a result of of that obvious limitation (dis)advantage actively discourages a third player from attempting to proactively contribute beyond some variation of "yea me too" no matter how descriptive that declaration is.

No no no. (dis)advantage fails for party collaboration the instant there are more than two players in the party. You are crashing further and further into the bold bits of the post that originally started this back and forth.

It does not matter if the DM has discretion when the system does nothing to support that GM in getting all of their players to proactively collaborate as a party when the party has more than two players in it. (dis)advantage is a less useful replacement for taking 10/taking 20 without the useful narrative options everyone at the table knew those granted the GM but it's billed as a replacement for DM's best friend & bonus types or skill challenges.
It isnt really done. But in a highly unusual situation, a DM can grant "two Advantages" to a Skill test, by having the player roll 3d20 for the highest natural result.
 

tetrasodium

Legend
Supporter
Epic
It isnt really done. But in a highly unusual situation, a DM can grant "two Advantages" to a Skill test, by having the player roll 3d20 for the highest natural result.
No the GM cant because it's still just a d20+mods no matter how many d20's you are pulling from. You aren't suggesting a method for the party to put their heads together & collaborate to achieve an unachievable DC. All you've suggested is somewhere between taking 10 & taking 20 in a system with a DC ladder is also insufficient.
 

Yaarel

He Mage
No the GM cant because it's still just a d20+mods no matter how many d20's you are pulling from. You aren't suggesting a method for the party to put their heads together & collaborate to achieve an unachievable DC. All you've suggested is somewhere between taking 10 & taking 20 in a system with a DC ladder is also insufficient.
I suggested a method.

"Achieving the unachievable" is the DM deciding a normally Impossible DC 30 is instead Hard DC 20.

So, the narrative explanation of how this teamwork operates will make the "Impossible" possible.
 

Yaarel

He Mage
By the way, Mike Mearls recommends recalibrating the DC Table, to be from the perspective of the Lowest Tier. Thus for a Commoner or a Level 1 character, "Medium" is something that requires skill (+2 Pro) and aptitude (+2 Ability) but is mostly doable. I added my terms for the most difficulty.

DIFFICULTY (+2 Pro +2 Ability)
DC 5 − Easy (100%)
DC 10 − Medium (75%)
DC 15 − Hard (50%)
DC 20 − Very Hard (25%)
DC 25 − [Apex Human]
DC 30 − [Super Human]


I will also add. Characters in the Professional Tier (Levels 5-8) can do "Passive" Skill Checks for routine jobs (comparable to Take 10), thus Autosucceed at Hard jobs.


Altogether, I find Mearls recalibrations an easier way for me to think about and assign DCs.
 

ECMO3

Hero
Trouble with (dis)advantage in this comparison is that it's a mechanic designed for "oh I help bob" gameplay rather than any form of proactive creative efforts. Now in 5e (dis)advantage discourages the group from putting their heads together & putting real thought or effort into collaborative problemsolving as a team for that reason.

I would disagree with this, and IMO it is the opposite.

"I try to figure out how to open the secret door" and then add my 12 different modifiers to investigation and roll to see if I am successful is less of collaborative problem solving than "I help Bob figure out how to open the secret door".

To really engage in collaborative problem solving you need to move away from the dice. The more you do that, the more the game focuses on the player ability and not the character ability.
 

ECMO3

Hero
I can in fact have a baker with +12 skill with baking tools, 5 hit points, +0 to hit in battle, et

I don't think this is possible. You can only add proficiency bonus twice, so in order to have a +12 he would need to be at least CR9 and then he would have more than 5 hps.

The 0 to attack is possible though.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
I don't think this is possible. You can only add proficiency bonus twice, so in order to have a +12 he would need to be at least CR9 and then he would have more than 5 hps.

The 0 to attack is possible though.
You can set NPC bonuses to whatever you want. You do not build NPCs with PC rules. Every expert baker is not going to be able to challenge a 9th level party.

"When you give an NPC game statistics, you have three main options: giving the NPC only the few statistics it needs..." If I determine that the CR 0 baker needs +12 in order to be good enough to serve the king, that's what he has.
 

Pauln6

Hero
You can set NPC bonuses to whatever you want. You do not build NPCs with PC rules. Every expert baker is not going to be able to challenge a 9th level party.

"When you give an NPC game statistics, you have three main options: giving the NPC only the few statistics it needs..." If I determine that the CR 0 baker needs +12 in order to be good enough to serve the king, that's what he has.
You don't need to roll unless there is a meaningful chance of failure. So e.g. if you are trying to win a competition or impress the King on his birthday, both of which could be framed as performance or persuasion with advantage for being trained in chef's tools.

Going back to Level Up, an expertise die is independent of level, particularly for NPCS, so you could add 1d4 expertise to bakers from background all the way up to 1d8 for a master Baker or even a version of skill mastery so that rolls of 5 or less for a baker and 9 or less for a master baker are treated as 10.
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top