D&D 5E The skill system is one dimensional.

[Micah Sweet]

I don't think I've said it specifically yet, but all of my examples should be taken with the grain of salt that is every situation is not a 100% always thing. In other words... the DM who continually put up gates and portculli that blocked passage was not being a purposeful jerk all the time by doing so (and in fact might not have even realized how often they were doing it and just thought it was good adventure design.) But if they did do it often enough that a player felt as though they wanted or needed to design their next character such that they could easily get past those blockades, that should be an indicator that they perhaps have gone to the well too often and should start thinking of new things.

(This isn't directed at you specifically, Scott, but more of me just potificating generally)

I'm of the opinion (and yes, it's purely my opinion) that any player who goes all-in on one specific thing to become the "absolutely best" at it... are doing it for one of two reasons. Either they want the narrative and story in the world to be that they are known as "the greatest in the land" or "the ultimate gentleman" etc... or they want to have the highest possible modifiers to their game mechanics so they can "win" every check the DM calls under that one specific thing. The former I think is a fun addition to the campaign world (as the player would then hopefully act in such a way as to exemplify that ideal), the latter is just removing a whole bunch of things from the table that the DM could use as story fodder because good story comes from conflict. And you can't have conflict with someone succeeding ALL the time.

A PC with modifiers so high that they succeed on every roll all the time to me is as pointless as a 10th party who does nothing but face off against repeated packs of a half-dozen CR 1/2 monsters over and over again. There's no drama. There's virtually no point. At least that's my feelings on the matter.

Ok, I understand now. Please disregard my post above regarding objectively stating your opinion. Hadn't read the whole thread.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm pretty sure other game systems do have those thing in them. I want to say Green Ronin's 'AGE' system has something like 'critical boons' that give you bonus stuff when you roll doubles or triples on the dice? And those I think are like set bonuses that are written down as being gained (rather than the GM just inventing something to be a boon for a successful roll.)

I don't think D&D will ever see something like that myself... but who knows? Maybe someone at WotC will think of some interesting way to do it using the 5E engine and offer it up? Not expecting it, but wouldn't dismiss it out of hand either.

Oh, I wasn't expecting anything from WotC (surprise that's my opinion). I thought it would be an interesting houserule to implement. Maybe I'll start a new thread about it?

 

[Micah Sweet]

If you go to r/rpg or r/rdndnext and start talking about 4E, especially in the former, you'll get upvotes and praise. It's not even an assumption at this point, it's fact.

Rpg.net has been unabashedly pro-4e forever I think.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I feel like this is one of those good ideas in theory, but placed into practical play, it is not a good idea.

And from the get go, I will concede that some tables I've played at have players that know their character in and out. They take their turn, and bam, are done in under a minute or two. But the vast majority of players I have seen do not know their characters. Sure, they know their powers, but they do not have a deep-seated knowledge of what to use in a given situation. Therefore, they sit and look, and read, and look again, and read, and look again, and read, then suddenly the combat changes because of something someone did, then they look again, and read, and then finally make up their mind.
If you don't mind hour long skill checks, then that might work out great. But for the typical table, the typical player, and the typical DM, they want the story to have some type of flow. This could, at many tables, completely and utterly destroy that flow.

Sure, it wouldn't work for every table. That's why I'm proposing a module here. Easily added, easily removed. Like how people thought 5e was going to be in the playtest.

 

[Micah Sweet]

If you think your two points are always 100% completely separate... that's your right. But I don't think either of us truly believes that.

I have a sneaking suspicion that people don't post here just to hear themselves and others talk... but that they occasionally post in hopes their views get acknowledged by WotC and are put within the game itself. LOL.

You're probably right, but it seems very much like tilting at windmills to me.

I just enjoy shouting into the void.

 

[Micah Sweet]

No doubt!

And to me as a DM, the downside of having that player is that I oftentimes feel like I should make up things for them to spot due to their massively high Perception just so it feels to the player like it got some actual use. Because otherwise-- since the high-Perception player would just pass on the information to the rest of the group anyway-- any descriptions I give will just include any secretive stuff to the entire table to begin with. Which means the entire party hears it and the high-Perception player doesn't really get a feeling of being the special one.

I mean, I could give general descriptions to the table and then pull the high-Perception person aside and give them the extra-secret stuff to then pass on to the rest of the group... but after like the first three times of doing that the novelty has worn off. And I suspect that's true with almost all characters that have a overly high ability or feature. It's cool to begin with... but then just becomes rote. It's why I think most players at the end of the day would probably find themselves more engaged with all parts of the game if their abilities were more spread out rather than all-in on a single one. But I could be wrong about that.

Specialization can IMO absolutely be done to a fault, yes.

 

[Xamnam]

any descriptions I give will just include any secretive stuff to the entire table to begin with. Which means the entire party hears it and the high-Perception player doesn't really get a feeling of being the special one.

My personal experience hasn't quite borne this out. Now, granted, I specifically call out in my description spoken to the whole party that the high Perception player specifically notices something, but as a result, that character constantly gets credit from the other members, and he personally crows about his skill in the matter with some frequency. He's constantly getting validation that his character is excellent at that skill, and how it has borne fruit for the party as a whole. I try and handle things in this way for any character who has a singularly higher skill than everyone else.

I think I likewise would be happy with the fiction matching the fantasy of building a character who is excellent at something in that way. Part of the joy of being so particularly skilled is that normal problems simply aren't quite that for you. That's not to say every time, or that there shouldn't be tasks that they can't still fail at. I certainly am not looking for a 100% success rate. Part of having that high skill level is just having opportunities that other people are very unlikely to even sniff, even if you yourself don't pass the test in the moment. But, it feels great to casually step over the things that other folks have an average chance at, and hand in hand, really bad if you end up repeatedly whiffing on things that your character by all means should be rock solid at.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I'm pretty sure other game systems do have those thing in them. I want to say Green Ronin's 'AGE' system has something like 'critical boons' that give you bonus stuff when you roll doubles or triples on the dice? And those I think are like set bonuses that are written down as being gained (rather than the GM just inventing something to be a boon for a successful roll.)

I don't think D&D will ever see something like that myself... but who knows? Maybe someone at WotC will think of some interesting way to do it using the 5E engine and offer it up? Not expecting it, but wouldn't dismiss it out of hand either.

3.5 had some stuff like this, the Epic Level Handbook had some extremely high DC opinions like climbing the side of a cloud or squeezing through a needle.

It was gated to a roll but at some point it was a gimme.

 

[Scott Christian]

And to me as a DM, the downside of having that player is that I oftentimes feel like I should make up things for them to spot due to their massively high Perception just so it feels to the player like it got some actual use. Because otherwise-- since the high-Perception player would just pass on the information to the rest of the group anyway-- any descriptions I give will just include any secretive stuff to the entire table to begin with. Which means the entire party hears it and the high-Perception player doesn't really get a feeling of being the special one.

I hear you. I try to craft specific scenes that enable them to use their perception. The old, "What do your elven eyes see?" I almost always attach that to some type of bonus: advantage on initiative, advantage on stealth, etc. I think this highlight goes a long way in allowing the PC to feel like their specialization was worth it.

 

[kenada]

If you think your two points are always 100% completely separate... that's your right. But I don't think either of us truly believes that.

I have a sneaking suspicion that people don't post here just to hear themselves and others talk... but that they occasionally post in hopes their views get acknowledged by WotC and are put within the game itself. LOL.

I think I’m in alignment with @Pedantic. If someone finds what I say useful, that’s great. I’m not under any illusion that WotC (or other designers) are likely to incorporate my ideas the way I want. That’s why I’m off doing the homebrew system.