D&D 5E Weighing in on 5e

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yeah, but Mike and Monte didn't suggest +20 for training. keterys did (tongue in cheek of course).

I don't think that Mike and Monte decided that this system is the cat's thingy.

I think Monte doesn't play 4E, is stuck in 3.5, and was talking out of his butt.


"That's the straightforward, active perception issue, but what about what I like to call "passive perception?" You know: when the PCs aren't actually looking for something, but it stands to reason that some one or more of them might just have a chance of noticing the hidden thing. Remember, for example, how in first 1st edition elves had a chance to notice secret doors just by walking by them? Or what about the rogue who always has a wary eye out for traps? You don't want these guys constantly making die rolls every 5 feet. The game will bog down quickly."


Monte is a fairly smart guy. You can tell so by his writing. But, it's pretty obvious to even a noob player that 4E already has a solution for this for two skills and it just happens to be called Passive Perception and Passive Insight.

When Monte has to explain this to 4E players who already know it and he uses the same terminology, but prefaces it with "what I like to call", it means that he's smart, but lacking in knowledge. He just didn't know that 4E already has that.

I suspect that this whole rank thing will be forgotten or only slightly added to the game system in 5E (and of course, keterys' game mechanics parody is just plain silly). At best, they'll add the equivalent of passive xxx to a few other skills like a passive climb for athletics (maybe), the 5E equivalent of take 10, but maybe expanded a bit (for example, a take 10 climb where the DM doesn't think that the climb is especially dangerous). 5E might just formalized this a bit more (hopefully, I hope they don't go all rank thingy in 5E).


Opps. Ignore this. I had only read Monte's perception article, not Mike's class warfare. Mike is actually thinking of this. Good thing he got negative feedback from some of the other designers. I still think that passive xxx works just as good without adding yet another layer and I see some other issues with the Journeyman approach. The game can work with the DM deciding "auto-work" or "auto-fail" without having a bunch of extra skill rules on it. It is a bit annoying to see game elements from other games creeping into D&D in the almighty attempt to simplify. If they want to simplify something, they should tackle the plethora of short term conditions that are constantly being added and subtracted during combat.

Oh, I agree. I was basically agreeing with you. I think Keterys' comment was actually not intended to be a pastiche of Monte's idea, it was actually a literal translation of it into existing 4e terms. The point of it was (I assume) to mock the idea by showing how ridiculous it really is, but I don't know.

Anyway, I pretty much entirely agree with you. I certainly don't think Monte is dumb. I've heard him say some pretty perceptive things. The fact that he obviously isn't clued in on 4e at all is a bit off-putting though.

 

[JoeGKushner]

But to get those new players, won't they want the game to be simplier?

What's your strength? 17.

Mine's 16. Any difference?

Nope.

What's your strength? 3.

Mine's 3 as well.

Simplicity works. Artificial holding? Not so much.

Maybe WoTC really does car about the 3-18 legacy but... anyone remember Vancian magic? If WoTC does drop it, mechanically there won't be that much difference, it'll make the game easier, and those people supremely pissed off can join the Vancian magic or 9 alignment crews.

Although I agree with what you say here, I think it goes beyond that a bit.

There are literally tens of millions of people who have played D&D over the decades (estimates vary, but 20 million is sometimes quoted). WotC will want to get as many of those people (plus new players) playing 5E as possible.

For those tens of millions of people, if they were playing a PC and another player says "What's your strength?", they could answer 17.

17 means something. It means that your PC is probably strong enough to go up and try to help hold the door closed that the monsters are trying to break through, or hold the rope so that another PC can climb into a pit.

An answer of 11 means something totally different.

For tens of millions of people worldwide.

Yes, saying "I have a strength of 3" mechanically would mean the same thing over "I have a strength of 0", it doesn't really mean that much to those millions of players.

Sure, new players wouldn't know the difference, but if WotC only tries to market to new players, they'll go out of business. Granted, a significant portion of those 20 million players played some time back and will never play the game again, but some portion of those 20 million players still play the game (or play an earlier version of it).

 

[SkidAce]

But to get those new players, won't they want the game to be simplier?

What's your strength? 17.

Mine's 16. Any difference?

Nope.

What's your strength? 3.

Mine's 3 as well.

Simplicity works. Artificial holding? Not so much.

Maybe WoTC really does car about the 3-18 legacy but... anyone remember Vancian magic? If WoTC does drop it, mechanically there won't be that much difference, it'll make the game easier, and those people supremely pissed off can join the Vancian magic or 9 alignment crews.

16 v 17 used to mean something, bend bars/lift gates, carrying capacity etc.

When they removed the differentiation caused the concerns, not the 3-18 span.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

16 v 17 used to mean something, bend bars/lift gates, carrying capacity etc.

When they removed the differentiation caused the concerns, not the 3-18 span.

Still does, you get a better encumberment!

 

[JoeGKushner]

Still does, you get a better encumberment!

What gets more use in the game? The score or the bonus?

Combat and skill checks use the bonus. There's probably a few tiny bits that use the actual stat but for those people who like encumberment, I don't think WoTC is going to keep it around just for that.

 

[KarinsDad]

But to get those new players, won't they want the game to be simplier?

I'm not convinced for two reasons:

1) They made the game quite a bit more complex when 4E came out. I have seen encounters were there are literally a dozen and a half little dazed, weakened, bloodied, marked, provides combat advantage, etc. tokens on the board all at the same time. Although WotC made a few minor changes like Cavalier auras, the game is still very bookkeeping intensive, even for experienced players.

2) The simplicity you are talking about is a nit. Who really cares if the PC has a 17 strength and nobody ever looks at that on the character sheet ever again? As long as the +3 is pulled over into powers and skills, what difference does it make? In fact, the +3 modifier on the character sheet is just as useless. Once it is carried over into powers and skills and feats, it's not worth the paper it is printed on.

I personally think that the nit you are talking about is white noise and the real gains in simplicity are going to be via simplifying and removing the vast plethora of short term conditions.

 

[JoeGKushner]

2) The simplicity you are talking about is a nit. Who really cares if the PC has a 17 strength and nobody ever looks at that on the character sheet ever again? As long as the +3 is pulled over into powers and skills, what difference does it make? In fact, the +3 modifier on the character sheet is just as useless. Once it is carried over into powers and skills and feats, it's not worth the paper it is printed on. .

Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but it looks to me like you're agreeing that have a 17 written down doesnt' mean anything and it's only the bonus that matters.

 

[KarinsDad]

Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but it looks to me like you're agreeing that have a 17 written down doesnt' mean anything and it's only the bonus that matters.

The 17 matters if a group likes to use the roll 4D6 drop lowest system to acquire their modifiers.

It also matters with regard to millions of players knowing what it means.

Could they remove it for 5E? Sure.

But, they have bigger fish to fry. If this is the most important fix for them to make for 5E, there's no reason to release 5E.

 

[keterys]

Yeah, but Mike and Monte didn't suggest +20 for training. keterys did (tongue in cheek of course).

Just showing the math, to get away from the fiddly handwavy "you can make a check if you're <insert word> but can't if you're <insert other word>" I don't really see that there's much to debate if it remains in hand-waving stages - everybody gut-checks a response, and that's about that.

That said, there _are_ benefits to their system (the current system serves, but I'd hardly call it good either), and the math I posted does make it so level matters - your level 30 wizard gains 1.5 trainings automatically. So, if you can get up to 5 trainings, your ability can cover up to 1 training, level up to 1.5 - so training is still more important, with 2/3 of the possible "bonus space", but the other stuff is 1/3. At the moment, level is up to +15, stat is up to +10, training +5, focus +3, background +2, theme +2, race +2, item +6... so of 45, 1/3 is level, 2/9 is stat, 1/9 is training, and the remaining 1/3 are fiddly bits that most people don't have many of but are large enough to force the issue entirely off the d20 on their own.

At the end of the day, do you consider it a feature for a person who is really invested in a skill to occasionally do worse than a person who isn't invested _at all_? At epic, frex, you'll often have people who are +12 succeeding at DC 28 checks while people who are +25 fail. Just the nature of the d20. Course, the +12 guy can't make the DC 37 Hard check, and the +25 guy can, sometimes.

 

[KarinsDad]

Just showing the math, to get away from the fiddly handwavy "you can make a check if you're <insert word> but can't if you're <insert other word>" I don't really see that there's much to debate if it remains in hand-waving stages - everybody gut-checks a response, and that's about that.

That said, there _are_ benefits to their system (the current system serves, but I'd hardly call it good either), and the math I posted does make it so level matters - your level 30 wizard gains 1.5 trainings automatically. So, if you can get up to 5 trainings, your ability can cover up to 1 training, level up to 1.5 - so training is still more important, with 2/3 of the possible "bonus space", but the other stuff is 1/3. At the moment, level is up to +15, stat is up to +10, training +5, focus +3, background +2, theme +2, race +2, item +6... so of 45, 1/3 is level, 2/9 is stat, 1/9 is training, and the remaining 1/3 are fiddly bits that most people don't have many of but are large enough to force the issue entirely off the d20 on their own.

At the end of the day, do you consider it a feature for a person who is really invested in a skill to occasionally do worse than a person who isn't invested _at all_?

Yes, I consider it a feature. I'm fairly good at my job at work. Every once in a while, I come up with a really good idea. Every once in a while, I foobar big time.

I don't see why someone heavily invested in a skill should be unable to fail on even somewhat easy tasks. It happens in the real world.

The problem with the "always succeeds" concept is that it doesn't match people's expectations of plausibility or verisimilitude. Always fails does, but not always succeeds (shy of simple tasks that nearly everyone always succeeds).

For example, a real life person is climbing a wall. He doesn't know it, but the wall above him is weak and crumbly (i.e. the randomness of rolling a 1 on a climb skill). He grabs it, it breaks and he falls. If there were auto-success in real life, the auto-success person grabs the same wall, it breaks, and he not only doesn't fall, but he continues moving up the wall at the same speed as if nothing happened. And, he does this with a single rank of training.

Btw, your math was fine. Your math illustrated exactly what their concept does, but with actual DC rules.

It's their concept that is unnecessary.

At epic, frex, you'll often have people who are +12 succeeding at DC 28 checks while people who are +25 fail. Just the nature of the d20. Course, the +12 guy can't make the DC 37 Hard check, and the +25 guy can, sometimes.

Often? 25% * 10% = 2.5% of the time or 1 time in 40. That's often? Against a given skill, that could be once per 20 or more gaming sessions. The last time that happened could have been last Spring. And like I said before, if this frequency is too high for someone, they could house rule roll 2D10 for skills. Course, easy stuff is almost always accomplished and hard stuff is rarely accomplished with 2D10.


And yup. The +25 History PC just doesn't know that the Earl of Sandwich had a mistress, but the +12 PC does.

The +25 Trickery PC hasn't encountered a lock where you have to put the tools in upside down, but the +12 PC has.

How many times have you heard the phrase "Everybody knows that" and you happened to not know it, even if you happened to be fairly fluent in the topic at hand? How many times have you been walking up or down a flight of stairs and stumbled?

Sorry, but an auto-success system is just excessive unnecessary rules. If something is an auto-success, it should be the DM just hand waving away the skill check and there is no need for a bunch of rules for it. A suggestion in the DMG is sufficient for this. Same for auto-fail.

Good DMs already do this. We don't need explicit rules for it and we especially don't need rules that make the skill system even more the purview of only trained PCs. Mike and Monte have been around long enough to know this, but they seem to have their brainstorming design ideas hats on instead of their gaming common sense hats.

Even a DC suggestion in the DMG would be fine. I had a DC 10 rope climb situation in my game just this last week and I said that anyone with a +4 or higher Athletics would eventually succeed, anyone with +3 or lower would need to roll. In reality, +9 or higher is auto-success right away and +4 or higher is auto-success eventually. They were not in a time crunch, so I used the lower number. +3 or less could result in a fall. The game already has the auto-succeed concept.

And your 2.5% of the time example can actually be a lot of fun in the game. Nodwick figures out the simple way past the trap while Artax's complicated solution fails. The players remember and laugh about that beyond just this session. Even well trained people can over analyze a situation and screw up.