D&D 5E Skills in 5e

[Sadrik]

Your level 20 characters will never encounter a level 1 lock, there is no reason for them to. It is simply never important.

I think you are wrong on this account. It handles your style of game. It however does not handle every style of game. It is helpful in a sandbox game to have an internally consistent DC system that says this is a tough lock because it is a tough lock, and this is a hidden secret door that is hard to find because it is hard to find, and this is a difficult trap to disarm because it is a difficult trap to disarm.

In ways this is like the stripping out of the level mechanic from saves which I have wanted for years. Now when the 20th level character drink poison there is no level mechanic in there to muck up if the poison is dangerous or not. You like the level mechanic, I get it. I am sure you are not the only one. However, I think stripping it down to the basest level and then if you like tack on the level mechanic as a module and everyone wins in this scenario. More than one way to skin a cat.

 

[sheadunne]

The lock in particular seems likely to come up for me as my characters are frequently out in different directions investigating things. So stuff like that tends to come up in my games at least.

It does in mine too. The 4e method is not my preferred method. But is the 4e method different from the early "if your base ability score is high enough you don't need to role" method that 5e was using? I think they're pretty much the same, at least in the outcome of ignoring those types of things when adventuring with a party. In 3e, you could just take a 10 or 20 and achieve the same thing.

Now I certainly don't want an ever increasing lock system because that just mucks with my sense of immersion, but I do want a quick resolution mechanic that isn't as flaky as a d20 roll when the lock is there because, well, the door has a lock, but I don't want it to bring the game to a crashing halt because it's there. If that makes sense.

I'm not advocating for this, but some games using two different types of system depending on whether it's a group activity or an individual activity. If the lock is really suppose to be an issue for an individual PC but not for a party, then you could apply a bonus to the activity, similar to an aid another action. +2 for each additional PC in the party, which would make those simple locks pretty much irrelevant and hand-waved.

For the core rules though, I would much prefer a roll the dice approach that makes everything equally difficult (but getting easier) at all levels. A simple skill check does that.

 

[Bedrockgames]

It does in mine too. The 4e method is not my preferred method. But is the 4e method different from the early "if your base ability score is high enough you don't need to role" method that 5e was using? I think they're pretty much the same, at least in the outcome of ignoring those types of things when adventuring with a party. In 3e, you could just take a 10 or 20 and achieve the same thing.

i dont see these as the same, the later is more abiut forgoing the random factor when raw abililty or skill is at a high enough level (i.e, you already have five ranks in jump, so you dont need to roll to leap over the log). This is an idea that existed in other games before and can work well. Personally i think it is more suited to certain skills (like knowledge skills, so your worldly knowledge isnt random and you only roll when you exceed your level of expertise).

The former just assumes you can pick a simple lock by virtue of being twentieth level. That doesnt work so well for me.

 

[Li Shenron]

Your level 20 characters will never encounter a level 1 lock, there is no reason for them to. It is simply never important.

I think the argument is that they would encounter it, but it's such a none issue that it wouldn't be intended to be a challenge. Which is right, but does lend itself to not being immersed in a real world. Any party of 20th level character should have little to no problem with a simple lock. It doesn't present a challenge.

You reasoning clearly demonstrates that you have a very specific gamestyle in mind, and you're still unable to see or willing to accept that other people prefer other gamestyles and they are not "wrong" (which style is more popular I cannot say, maybe your style is vastly more popular than mine, but from my little perspective I see our gamestyle all the time because obviously it's the one we use...).

You are stating that something which is a challenge for a 1st level character should not be a challenge at all for a 20th level character. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the message I get is that everything which is a challenge at 1st level should be trivial at 20th. This is one gamestyle, and AFAIK it's a design assumption of 4e.

I am stating that in my gamestyle something ceases to be a challenge only for those characters that choose to get better at that.

The idea that challenges get harder as you level up is only half of the point.
The other half of the point, is whether the game should leave behind those who don't invest in a skill or not, and in this regard 4e is different for example from 3e: the 4e philosophy (therefore the reference gamestyle) is that nobody should be left behind, thus IIRC everybody gets better at everything, and the difference between someone who invested in a skill and someone who didn't is bounded (e.g. roughly the same difference in % of success); the 3e philosophy is that if you don't invest in lockpicking, you'll never get better at lockpicking, thus that 1st level lock is always going to be a challenge.

These are two different playstyles, with 4e being more heroic so that everything becomes trivial at some point for heroes, and 3e being more gritty because if your party doesn't have a Rogue in 4e, well it's a nuisance but can be managed, if it's a 3e party then you have a problem. And here lies the key question: what is more fun, having a problem or not? Well let me tell you that there is no answer to this! For some gaming group, getting stuck in front of a lock when you're all heroes saving the world is frustrating (apparently unless the lock if presented as "made by the gods", even if at the end it still takes a d20 roll with the same % of success), but to other gaming groups having some things in the game here and there which blocks you, is a chance for being required to find a creative solution.

So it's not only a problem of individual PCs but also of the whole party. 4e uses its design solution to allow a party any combination of classes with minimal drawbacks. Don't have a Rogue or Cleric in the party? It makes a small difference, don't worry. More or less a 4e party is capable of handling any type of challenge, although with varying % of success. This is very good for some groups. OTOH in my favourite playstyle this is not so good... because I want sometimes not to be capable of handling something in the straightforward way (e.g. roll a skill check), so for me a party of PC that can handle everything is actually not as much fun as a party that sometimes is stuck and forces the players to find an uncanny way out.

Therefore, of course I want a Rogue who's investing in lockpicking to get better so that at 20th level those 1st level locks are a joke for her... but I do not want that to happen to everybody else. And if nobody in the party invests in lockpicking, I want the party to be still challenged by those rusty cheap locks forever (although as I said before, clearly this means only if they try to pick those locks... an epic PC will have plenty of other ways to blast the lock away!). Having someone invest in lockpicking is a choice in my favourite gamestyle.

I'm sorry if I'm not so good at delivering my point... check out also [MENTION=14506]Sadrik[/MENTION] posts which probably say it better

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

This is the exact sentiment I was going to point out. It really goes to the heart of adventure design. If you lean more toward sandbox style games having DCs have an integral and more realistic value, quality lock means quality lock, not some abstract meaning of character level 20 lock (or worse good lock plus some wacky modifier to make it harder based on the character's level).

So in the standard railroad game model you can tailor all DCs to be an appropriate challenge for PCs but in an internally consistent sandbox design it is better to say a good lock is a good lock, then how characters interface with it is based on the intrinsic value. Not the other way around. To me it strikes me as funny to look at it the other way... so characters will have x bonuses over x levels so to make it a challenge we have to add what amounts to a level penalty to bring the DCs in line and make them still a challenge. Finding hard secret doors and traps based on level and not on quality of said devices (yuk).

Then why do you look at it that way? Ultimately the 4e concept of a 'level 20' lock IS just a measure of 'quality', you can come up with a formula for lock costs and there are 30 entries on that, one for each level. The level 1 lock represents some simple mechanism poor people and cheap inns lock their doors with. Level 30 locks are made by insane locksmiths that work for Asmodeus on contract. There's NO rule in 4e that insists that you run into stuff of your level either. Stuff of your level in fact is generally a sort of mild challenge, stuff 5 levels up is HARD, and stuff beyond that is very very hard.

Really it is a matter of scaling. I think challenges should become easier as characters level up. I also think things like searching and lock DCs should be looked at as what they are rather than as a way to fit in with a scaling system that makes character level so important.

Which is exactly what scaling does, it makes it so that challenges get easier as you level up. The 20th level guy can go through the level 1 lock with ease. Of course the things he normally wants to bother with aren't level one locks, they are the living spider locks of the drow house lords of the Underdark, which are not so easy. Of course if you WANT to make them easy, you CAN. The system is entirely flexible that way, you just make them easy DC checks/lower level checks. Obviously you should also award less XP for such easy tasks. Again, this is not really different from how AD&D etc have always worked.

Last point, if the scaling is extremely important to a certain segment of D&D gamers, and it sounds like it is a feature for some. It is very easy to add back in. Abdulalhazarad, you can simply add +1/2 level to all characters and +1/2 level to all DCs. An extremely simple fix, but it will give you the same feel you are looking for.

Sure, but why would a system like this ever be preferable? Again, characters have ALWAYS traditionally faced proportionate challenges. That is the entire essence of D&D. Look at the AD&D rogue, his chances of picking a lock GO UP WITH LEVEL, and right in the DMG it talks about using "higher quality locks" in lower dungeon levels, adding traps to the locks, etc to make it harder again. The point is I just can't imagine a system where the DM is told "nope, you shouldn't make locks harder at higher level" That seems quite bizarre to me and I fail utterly to grasp how that is supposed to make the game 'better'. Look at it this way, the 'lock quality' rule was a sort of vague idea in 1e (you could buy expensive locks and the DMG says something about locks that reduce Open Lock check chances), in 3e and 4e it is just polished up, the costs of these 'higher level' locks are spelled out and the penalty is spelled out (the target DC goes up). With no scaling we are just dropped back to AD&D level design where no official way to make things harder exists.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think you are wrong on this account. It handles your style of game. It however does not handle every style of game. It is helpful in a sandbox game to have an internally consistent DC system that says this is a tough lock because it is a tough lock, and this is a hidden secret door that is hard to find because it is hard to find, and this is a difficult trap to disarm because it is a difficult trap to disarm.

In ways this is like the stripping out of the level mechanic from saves which I have wanted for years. Now when the 20th level character drink poison there is no level mechanic in there to muck up if the poison is dangerous or not. You like the level mechanic, I get it. I am sure you are not the only one. However, I think stripping it down to the basest level and then if you like tack on the level mechanic as a module and everyone wins in this scenario. More than one way to skin a cat.

I've run plenty of Sandbox D&D. High level PCs don't waste their time on low level challenges. The DM rarely even points them at those. In no edition of D&D before did it work this way that a hard to pick lock was always forever hard to pick. You went up in levels and your pick locks went up until you could easily pick it. That's how it worked in AD&D and still works in 4e! If the high level party goes into the level 1 dungeon, guess what, the poison is trivial, the locks are a joke, and the monsters are speedbumps.

The problem with your logic about poisons/locks/difficulty in general is that easy and hard are just two sides of the same coin. If you can't make it easier, you can't make it harder either. What that REALLY means is that you're stuck with the hard task being the default and you now have to muck with 'easier than normal' as well as 'harder than normal'. You haven't gained anything except a more awkward way of dealing with the same thing. It isn't even a play style difference, it is just worse mechanics. We sorted this all out 20 yrs ago and it got fixed in 3e. So apparently everything that is once discovered is eventually forgotten and I guess DDN will have to recapitulate all the errors of the past until maybe it finally reaches the 21st Century. Wake me up for 6e when we can start to have a better game again, lol.

 

[sheadunne]

You reasoning clearly demonstrates that you have a very specific gamestyle in mind, and you're still unable to see or willing to accept that other people prefer other gamestyles and they are not "wrong" (which style is more popular I cannot say, maybe your style is vastly more popular than mine, but from my little perspective I see our gamestyle all the time because obviously it's the one we use...).

You are stating that something which is a challenge for a 1st level character should not be a challenge at all for a 20th level character. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the message I get is that everything which is a challenge at 1st level should be trivial at 20th. This is one gamestyle, and AFAIK it's a design assumption of 4e.

I am stating that in my gamestyle something ceases to be a challenge only for those characters that choose to get better at that.

The idea that challenges get harder as you level up is only half of the point.
The other half of the point, is whether the game should leave behind those who don't invest in a skill or not, and in this regard 4e is different for example from 3e: the 4e philosophy (therefore the reference gamestyle) is that nobody should be left behind, thus IIRC everybody gets better at everything, and the difference between someone who invested in a skill and someone who didn't is bounded (e.g. roughly the same difference in % of success); the 3e philosophy is that if you don't invest in lockpicking, you'll never get better at lockpicking, thus that 1st level lock is always going to be a challenge.

These are two different playstyles, with 4e being more heroic so that everything becomes trivial at some point for heroes, and 3e being more gritty because if your party doesn't have a Rogue in 4e, well it's a nuisance but can be managed, if it's a 3e party then you have a problem. And here lies the key question: what is more fun, having a problem or not? Well let me tell you that there is no answer to this! For some gaming group, getting stuck in front of a lock when you're all heroes saving the world is frustrating (apparently unless the lock if presented as "made by the gods", even if at the end it still takes a d20 roll with the same % of success), but to other gaming groups having some things in the game here and there which blocks you, is a chance for being required to find a creative solution.

So it's not only a problem of individual PCs but also of the whole party. 4e uses its design solution to allow a party any combination of classes with minimal drawbacks. Don't have a Rogue or Cleric in the party? It makes a small difference, don't worry. More or less a 4e party is capable of handling any type of challenge, although with varying % of success. This is very good for some groups. OTOH in my favourite playstyle this is not so good... because I want sometimes not to be capable of handling something in the straightforward way (e.g. roll a skill check), so for me a party of PC that can handle everything is actually not as much fun as a party that sometimes is stuck and forces the players to find an uncanny way out.

Therefore, of course I want a Rogue who's investing in lockpicking to get better so that at 20th level those 1st level locks are a joke for her... but I do not want that to happen to everybody else. And if nobody in the party invests in lockpicking, I want the party to be still challenged by those rusty cheap locks forever (although as I said before, clearly this means only if they try to pick those locks... an epic PC will have plenty of other ways to blast the lock away!). Having someone invest in lockpicking is a choice in my favourite gamestyle.

I'm sorry if I'm not so good at delivering my point... check out also [MENTION=14506]Sadrik[/MENTION] posts which probably say it better

I'm not arguing for or against. My preferred style is not the 4e mechanic, it's not even the 3e mechanic, 2e or 1e mechanic. I was simply pointing out the rationale. Logically it makes perfect sense. I cannot think of one player that could not bypass a simple lock with ease at 20th level, whether it's bashing it down, summoning a creature, or simply teleporting around it. It's a none issue. It's only there because there's suppose to be a lock there. It's certainly not put there to challenge anyone. Is there an example you can give where a 20th level anything cannot easily bypass a simple lock? Sure there might be corner cases where there's sneaking involved, but that's not really any reason to see major issue with the 4e method. That method is only an issue with the disconnect with adding level to skill checks. You can use any mechanic you like in any edition you like, but that lock is still not going to be a challenge to high level characters. 4e uses an approach to that, by saying don't even bother trying to make it a challenge. earlier editions leave it in there because it's keeping with the real-world aspect, but it's still not a challenge. Neither direction is particularly good for all styles of play, but they both achieve the same result, that lock is just not an issue.

Should the simple lock be an issue for a high level party? If no, then it really is just a matter of flavor which system you use. Either or any is fine that allows the lock to be ignored. If yes, then there are several issues with the system that need to be ironed out, in addition to flat-math. For instance, what has the rogue been doing for the last 20 levels? Why didn't the wizard memorized Knock 15 levels ago when the locks were a real issue? Why didn't the fighter smack it to pieces? Why didn't the cleric summon something to eat the lock?

I just think you reach a point when certain things become dungeon dressing and not a challenge. It's just the nature of the game. Pick your flavor and move on, it's going to happen in 5e the way it's happened in every edition so far. That lock just won't be a challenge to high level characters.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I've run plenty of Sandbox D&D. High level PCs don't waste their time on low level challenges. The DM rarely even points them at those. In no edition of D&D before did it work this way that a hard to pick lock was always forever hard to pick. You went up in levels and your pick locks went up until you could easily pick it. That's how it worked in AD&D and still works in 4e! If the high level party goes into the level 1 dungeon, guess what, the poison is trivial, the locks are a joke, and the monsters are speedbumps.

.

that may be true of the rogue or theif. In AD&D other people didnt get better at picking locks as they leveled. In 3E, if you didnt put points in pick lock, your ability to pick locks didnt go up. Of the thief isnt there or drops, suddenly that low chllenge lock beomes a lot harder.

 

[sheadunne]

that may be true of the rogue or theif. In AD&D other people didnt get better at picking locks as they leveled. In 3E, if you didnt put points in pick lock, your ability to pick locks didnt go up. Of the thief isnt there or drops, suddenly that low chllenge lock beomes a lot harder.

In 3e if the rogue is picking locks at 3rd level or higher, you forgot to bring your wizard

 

[Bedrockgames]

In 3e if the rogue is picking locks at 3rd level or higher, you forgot to bring your wizard

Yeah, pick locks isnt the best example because there are so many other ways to it. But for methe central point is your character isn't going to be good at things unrelated to his class or that he didnt invest points in simply because of his level. That just feels off to how I run and approach the game.