D&D 5E Sneakity Sneak

[CapnZapp]

It's a general problem with skills in 5e.

Fundamentally everyone is crap at their best skills and only a bit more crap at their worst.

This means that a character who is good at what they do, and trained to do it will end up with roughly a 25% chance to fail against someone who has no training and no aptitude, and is unprepared for the action.

I think the answer is probably to be simply assume that defensive skills are at disadvantage unless specific measures are currently being taken, giving the edge to the initiator of the opposed skill contest.

Well, I'm gamist enough to recognize the value of retaining a risk of failure.

In other words, if there is no chance of failure, why even roll? (What I mean here is mostly narrativist: if you can't see any storytelling value with a failure, you should not make it a check, you should simply narrate success)

Giving the defender disadvantage by default is a great solution, both because it means the active party is much more likely to succeed, and because there remains a small risk of failure (the "otherwise why bother rolling" bit). I might actually adopt that one.

I mean, without having to change all the values. Ideally, the values were different so no disadvantage was needed, but (dis)advantage does carry its built-in "dampener": its bonuses shrink as success becomes more (or less) likely, so as to always retain a small chance of failure (or success).

 

[CapnZapp]

Why don't you just give the monsters some ranged attacks or include monsters that have ranged attacks in your encounters?

Is there a monster union mandate on melee-monsters only or something?

As an impulsive question, yours is quite understandable.

The answer isn't as simple however - the issue isn't that I can't have goblin archers or whatever, but that most heavy hitters in the MM are only heavy-hitting in melee.

My problem is that denying monsters melee is too good of a tactic. My solution is to reduce a party's ability to do that.

Since my theory is that the main way characters accomplish this is by having "great range" (that is, being highly mobile, having good "reach" or both) my suggestions focus on reducing the "range" of characters.

Why do I put words like "range" and "reach" within quotes? Because reach normally means melee reach. Here I'm expanding the concept to include, say, a crossbow archer with Sharpshooter and Crossbow Expert feats, since

he is effectively similar to a dual wielding shortsword melee fighter only that his reach isn't 5 feet, its 120 feet.

Yes - the rules allow characters to effectively slash someone with a shortsword from over a hundred feet away. No moving, no magic, no trickery​

Either that, or your character has an effective Speed close to 120. That works too.

In both cases, the characters have a "threat range" where they can effectively engage monsters at distances far greater than any designer foresaw.

It completely breaks the entire MM (goblin archers notwithstanding) and it completely breaks the fundamentals of the fantasy genre D&D is squarely placed in.

To fix this, I am attempting to go straight to the fundamentals.

My observation is that with slow dwarfs with axes, the game suffers from none of these issues. Why? Because his range is much more in line with the game's fundamental expectations. His range isn't 120 feet, it's 25 feet.

The difference is staggering.

So. The question becomes: how do we tweak the rules to encourage minmaxers* to build short-range characters?

*) plenty of people already play axe dwarves, and that's perfectly alright. I'm just identifying that it doesn't cost you enough to play a vastly more effective build using range, and so this is mostly an issue for us with minmaxing players.

I hope this answers your question; that no, it's not just a matter of having more goblin archers

 

[CapnZapp]

How fast are the PCs moving? Fast movement is -5 to Perception.

Who is in front? Generally, only the front rank gets a chance to notice a trap or ambush (or maybe the second rank, at disadvantage).

What are they doing? Characters who are drawing maps, or navigating, or tracking a creature, or foraging for food do not get Perception checks to spot traps and ambushes.

Are they using darkvision in darkness? That means *all* Perception checks are at disadvantage.

Are they using a light-source? Anything outside the range of the torch or lantern or whatever is invisible to the characters.


Adventurers are generally pretty perceptive - when you live by the sword/spell, you either learn to notice threats or you die - but they are not immune to ambushes.

Well, let me assure you I am fully aware of all these rules.

I should also tell any readers Greenstone seems to be mixing in the travel guidelines from the DMG into the general rules, the ones that apply when it's time for combat rounds.

I have an experiment for you Greenstone. Pick a stealthy monster from the Monster Manual (though not undead that hide within walls, on the ethereal plane and such). Have, say, four of them hunker down to make an ambush, your choice of terrain (hills, forest, underground passage etc).

Then have the heroes start in the distance and walk right up to them. Tell me which checks you make and when you make them.

And we can compare the playing styles of our players as well as the dungeonmastering styles of you and me. Hopefully this will make you see what I mean

 

[CapnZapp]

Roll skills with 3d6 instead of d20. You WILL see big difference in proficiency then.

Thank you for providing an actual rules change suggestion.

(To everyone: do note Horwath said roll skills with 3d6. That's actually important, at least to me. I would never want to roll attacks and saves with 3d6. This has been discussed extensively, for example here: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?295304-3d6-instead-of-d20

 

[CapnZapp]

I had a similar problem back in 4e. An Elven Ranger whose Perception and therefore Passive Perception was truly ridiculous. It basically meant traps and Secret Doors were pointless, and trying to sneak up on the Party was really difficult.

Thank you for your contribution

 

[knasser]

Roll skills with 3d6 instead of d20. You WILL see big difference in proficiency then.

That's a fantastic idea!

 

[Imaro]

Well, let me assure you I am fully aware of all these rules.

I should also tell any readers Greenstone seems to be mixing in the travel guidelines from the DMG into the general rules, the ones that apply when it's time for combat rounds.

I have an experiment for you Greenstone. Pick a stealthy monster from the Monster Manual (though not undead that hide within walls, on the ethereal plane and such). Have, say, four of them hunker down to make an ambush, your choice of terrain (hills, forest, underground passage etc).

Then have the heroes start in the distance and walk right up to them. Tell me which checks you make and when you make them.

And we can compare the playing styles of our players as well as the dungeonmastering styles of you and me. Hopefully this will make you see what I mean

Monster: Darkmantle
Terrain: stalagmite covered cavern
Checks: None... the ability is False Appearance, so no check necessary. Wait until party traverses the cavern under the Darkmantles and BAM!!! they are engaged in melee when the Darkmantle's drop..

Here's another...

Monster: Gargoyle
Terrain: Rooftop of a Gothic-esque castle crowned with grotesque statues.
Checks: Again none... False Appearance.

I am curious given your issues...exactly how do you handle monsters such as these?

 

[Horwath]

Thank you for providing an actual rules change suggestion.

(To everyone: do note Horwath said roll skills with 3d6. That's actually important, at least to me. I would never want to roll attacks and saves with 3d6. This has been discussed extensively, for example here: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?295304-3d6-instead-of-d20

I would go with saves also. They are only few rolled per session, same as skills. But in any fight there is 30+ attack rolls. some go over 100. Attack rolls even themselves out in d20.

Skills and saves are few and they should be more consistent.

 

[Helldritch]

I have had an idea. Not sure how it would go but check it out.

What if stat bonus damage on range attacks could only be added once per target. Something like some casters get with their cantrip at certain levels (usualy 6 if I remember correctly).
It would not stop the range attack from being good vs multiple monsters.
It would only reduce "archery potential dmg" to be on par with cantrips.
The Sharp shooter feat would still be relevant as it would allow more dmg per arrows.

This would encourage melee builds a bit more but still would make archery deadly.

 

[guachi]

I have my players roll ability checks (initiative excepted) with a d12+d8 for a few reasons.

First, not enough love for the d12 and it wants to be rolled more. Second, I like the shape of the distribution curve. In fact, it's not even a curve. Results 9-13 all have the same chance of occurring, 1 in 12.

2-4 and 17-20 all have a less than 5% chance (what you would get with a d20) of occurring but it's at least greater than zero. 3d6 eliminates any possibility of a 1-2 or a 19-20 but the only result you can't get with d12+d8 is a 1.

Also, I find d12+d8 a good median between a d20 and 3d6. You have a 30% of a 15+ on d20, a 22% chance on d12+d8, and 9% with 3d6. Though I could see a DM being happy knowing an unskilled PC with no ability bonus would succeed only 1 in 11 times on a DC 15 using 3d6.