D&D 5E Weighing in on 5e

[keterys]

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.

Oh sure

Fwiw, I saw it happen three times playtesting EPIC3-3... so, 6 sessions with 5 person-tables. If each PC was making 20 checks, that's not too crazy.

Not like when I was running Dresden Files on Sunday and rolled 1s on 4d3 (1 in 81 chance)... then again two rolls later. And that was 2 of my first 4 rolls of the night. Random is, well, random, even when it's unlikely.

Tbh, my problems with the skill system are more how it doesn't interface with the rest of the system - like you'll have attacks where you use skill checks, or resist with skill checks - making escape checks against a DC, great. Against a defense? Horsepoop.

If they made skills and attacks advance in much the same way, though, I think it'd be fine. That's not at all what I think we're getting

 

[Gort]

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

You shouldn't do this.

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.

Nobody said it was "the most important", that's just a strawman. I said it would be nice to dump the sacred cow and make the game simpler for new players to understand, as part of a new edition of other changes.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Oh sure

Fwiw, I saw it happen three times playtesting EPIC3-3... so, 6 sessions with 5 person-tables. If each PC was making 20 checks, that's not too crazy.

Not like when I was running Dresden Files on Sunday and rolled 1s on 4d3 (1 in 81 chance)... then again two rolls later. And that was 2 of my first 4 rolls of the night. Random is, well, random, even when it's unlikely.

Tbh, my problems with the skill system are more how it doesn't interface with the rest of the system - like you'll have attacks where you use skill checks, or resist with skill checks - making escape checks against a DC, great. Against a defense? Horsepoop.

If they made skills and attacks advance in much the same way, though, I think it'd be fine. That's not at all what I think we're getting

Well, here's the problem Keterys (and pretty much everyone that has commented on this has made the same mistake). There is a VERY significant difference between skills and attacks.

When you make attacks you pretty much always have choices (there are a few cases where you don't and basically the same problem comes up, which would be with OAs). Nobody makes an attack with an off stat, a weapon/implement they don't get all kinds of goodies for, etc. You have pretty much every choice there being relatively optimized. So you are always getting something like (at level 1) +3-5 for ability score, plus 2-3 for proficiency (for weapon attacks), and often an expertise and/or class feature bonus. Nobody makes an attack at less than +5 (+3 for implement) and usually it is more like +7/+5.

Now, compare this with skills. OFTEN (and this is especially the case if using the skill in combat as an 'attack') you don't get to choose anything. You are using whatever random skill it is that is required in that situation. Thus you have the full range of possibilities, from -5 all the way on up to +17 or something for super optimized. You don't get to decide to only use a GOOD skill, so these bad numbers DO matter. For attacks the bad numbers are irrelevant, no wizard whacks at things using an MBA with his staff and attacking AC at a pathetic +2 (best case, it is of course MUCH worse at higher levels, especially if the attack isn't with your enhanced item). There's simply no point in wasting actions like that, except the OA that is already complained about a whole lot and has a special patch feat that sort of fixes some of the problem.

Thus THERE IS NO SUCH THING and NEVER WILL BE such a thing as bringing attack and skill numbers into line. It is conceptually impossible. You will always have those cases where you have a horrible skill bonus, and have to use that skill. There will virtually never be such a case with attacks. The ACTUAL math behind the two things is really not that far off. The EFFECTIVE math is permanently off. The only 'solutions' are worse than the problem (basically make the skill system such that there's never any real meaningful difference between PCs in skill bonus, which makes the whole system pointless).

Even making tighter skill bonus by whatever means doesn't solve it. Klutzy the paladin with a -5 Acrobatics isn't going away. Even if Speedy Gonzales the rogue with 20 DEX only has a total of a +7 and that's the best you can do at 1st level there's a 12 point spread, and that doesn't leave a heck of a lot of options in the system since it would mean getting rid of ALL ways to push your skill bonus except ability score and a bunch of non-stackable +2s. You don't even have room for a training bonus high enough to be worth spending a feat on. Clearly there are ways to redesign stuff to get things down to that level and still have meaningful options, but that only gets you to the 12 point spread, which is still FAR more than the general 2-3 point max spread for attacks. The twain shall never meet.