D&D 5E What rule(s) is 5e missing?

[Vaalingrade]

I am not sure which version of Holy Word you are talking about, but the one on AoN (which TBF is not technically D&D) does not say anything specifically about neutrals, it simply exempts good characters. It specifically targets neutral creatures exactly as much as fireball does (which is to say not at all).

I just looked it up on d20srd, and you are correct, it is just a monsters spell to cast like Fireball or Dominate Person and certainly not Good on any level except the tag to indicate it is from the Good Domain. I'm trying to find the spell I'm remembering that explicitly marks out that it does less damage to Neutrals because Good in D&D is just gang colors.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

No, because the potential consequences affect whether the NOCs are taking on any personal risk, which changes the DC. This is why the GM needs to have a good idea of the attitudes, motivations and circumstances of the NPCs. But if you know all that, you probably don't need to roll.

Ah, I see now where you were going with that. Yes, I agree.

 

[tetrasodium]

I am not sure which version of Holy Word you are talking about, but the one on AoN (which TBF is not technically D&D) does not say anything specifically about neutrals, it simply exempts good characters. It specifically targets neutral creatures exactly as much as fireball does (which is to say not at all).


I am no expert on baseball, but I am given to understand that batters face a lot of balls and are expected to miss a lot of them, because they'll get another go at it right after. That would seem to make it a poor analogy for a skill check that you get one chance at, before lethal violence ensues.

_
glass.

D&d players tend to face a lot of encounters. 5e even cranked up the numbers over past editions there too. It would be a very unusual d&d game if a persuade check or any other skill check did not result in simply having the players "get another go" at something else regardless of success. Even if the check is one that ends the campaign the next step is to simply start another campaign

 

[DND_Reborn]

and again they didn't post a chart like you did

Forgive me if I am out of line, here, but isn't this the chart in question?

I pushed back that dc20 is crazy (look how few ACs are in 20's and getting a magic +1 to hit is WAY easier then +1 to a skill)

"hard ACs" are not 25... I'm not even sure there are more than 5 ACs above 5 and I would bet all would be Monsters CR 18+. However ANY level 'hard' check is DC 20 or 25.

attacks are stat mod+ prof + magic item (maybe advantage or bless or guidence)
skills are stat mod + prof (maybe advantage or guidence but magic items more rare)

now rogue and bard do get to double there prof on some skills... but I have been told if fighters doubled prof on weapon attacks that would break the system wide open... but again why are ACs treated different than ACs?

I agree DC 20 is high, but it isn't "crazy" IMO. IME AC 20 and higher isn't hard to do, most PCs will have that by tier 2 if they are defensive builds at all.

You are correct, only a few creatures have AC 25, and that is the cap for creatures IIRC.

Guidance is for skills, not attacks.

Like attacks, most PCs have skills which they excel at via high ability modifiers as well. So, you are likely to have the same modifier for both:

Attacks: proficiency + ability + magic (item or bless, etc.)
Skills: proficiency + ability + magic (yes, few items but guidance as at-will cantrip...)

But, FWIW, AC 20 is not "common" really until tier 4 encounters (depending on where you draw the line with the CRs, of course), but by then you are typically +10 or +11 (without magic weapons), so, you are still in that "wheel-house" of needing an 8 or 9 and having the 60-65% chance of success IME.

For skills, it is pretty much the same since guidance can be used in lieu of magic items. But if you throw in expertise, it makes even DC 20 at that level nearly an auto-success...

Anyway, DC 20 is hard, and trying to convince a hostile creature to do as asked should be hard. But even a CHA 16 with prof +3 would only need a 14 or better. Throw in guidance and you are looking at a 12. Have another PC help in trying to convince them (or gain advantage through other means...) and now that "hard" task has about a 70% chance of success... Again, throw in expertise and it is fairly easy (84%; DC 20 with +11 and advantage).

Finally, why are DCs different from ACs? Well, because ability (skill) checks are not combat. Remember with ability checks, unless there is a meaningful consequence to failure, often you don't even need to bother rolling. Combat is much more "intense" in that fashion--there is always a meaningful consequence to failure. Keeping combat success in that "sweet spot" of 60-65% is fairly easy. Most ability checks range from DC 10-20 anyway, with very few every above that (the same is true for ACs and saving throws). So, I don't see them as being that different really. IME, I would say your typical ability check is probably lower than your typical AC.

 

[James Gasik]

I am not sure which version of Holy Word you are talking about, but the one on AoN (which TBF is not technically D&D) does not say anything specifically about neutrals, it simply exempts good characters. It specifically targets neutral creatures exactly as much as fireball does (which is to say not at all).


I am no expert on baseball, but I am given to understand that batters face a lot of balls and are expected to miss a lot of them, because they'll get another go at it right after. That would seem to make it a poor analogy for a skill check that you get one chance at, before lethal violence ensues.

_
glass.

Holy Word :: d20srd.org

This version perhaps?

 

[cbwjm]

I just looked it up on d20srd, and you are correct, it is just a monsters spell to cast like Fireball or Dominate Person and certainly not Good on any level except the tag to indicate it is from the Good Domain. I'm trying to find the spell I'm remembering that explicitly marks out that it does less damage to Neutrals because Good in D&D is just gang colors.

You're probably thinking of holy smite. It excludes good creatures and has less effect on neutral creatures. Holy Smite :: d20srd.org

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Forgive me if I am out of line, here, but isn't this the chart in question?

View attachment 248714


I agree DC 20 is high, but it isn't "crazy" IMO. IME AC 20 and higher isn't hard to do, most PCs will have that by tier 2 if they are defensive builds at all.

You are correct, only a few creatures have AC 25, and that is the cap for creatures IIRC.

Guidance is for skills, not attacks.

Like attacks, most PCs have skills which they excel at via high ability modifiers as well. So, you are likely to have the same modifier for both:

Attacks: proficiency + ability + magic (item or bless, etc.)
Skills: proficiency + ability + magic (yes, few items but guidance as at-will cantrip...)

But, FWIW, AC 20 is not "common" really until tier 4 encounters (depending on where you draw the line with the CRs, of course), but by then you are typically +10 or +11 (without magic weapons), so, you are still in that "wheel-house" of needing an 8 or 9 and having the 60-65% chance of success IME.

For skills, it is pretty much the same since guidance can be used in lieu of magic items. But if you throw in expertise, it makes even DC 20 at that level nearly an auto-success...

Anyway, DC 20 is hard, and trying to convince a hostile creature to do as asked should be hard. But even a CHA 16 with prof +3 would only need a 14 or better. Throw in guidance and you are looking at a 12. Have another PC help in trying to convince them (or gain advantage through other means...) and now that "hard" task has about a 70% chance of success... Again, throw in expertise and it is fairly easy (84%; DC 20 with +11 and advantage).

Finally, why are DCs different from ACs? Well, because ability (skill) checks are not combat. Remember with ability checks, unless there is a meaningful consequence to failure, often you don't even need to bother rolling. Combat is much more "intense" in that fashion--there is always a meaningful consequence to failure. Keeping combat success in that "sweet spot" of 60-65% is fairly easy. Most ability checks range from DC 10-20 anyway, with very few every above that (the same is true for ACs and saving throws). So, I don't see them as being that different really. IME, I would say your typical ability check is probably lower than your typical AC.

All of this, and to say a second time you can fail forward with skill checks in a way that you usually can't with attack rolls.

Getting a 17 vs DC20 roll to open a lock....you can succeed on opening it but you will lose that set of picks getting there. Fair for the player and the GM.

Getting a 17 vs DC20 to hit a golem...you can succeed at damaging it, but your sword will shatter in the process. Not as fair.

Getting a 17 vs DC20 to convince the guard to let you go....he says if you give him 30 pieces of silver he is willing to look the other way. Fair for the ayer and the GM.

 

[Hriston]

That doesn't make it better.

If your assumption is that I intended to address your concerns, you are mistaken.

 

[Lanefan]

All of this, and to say a second time you can fail forward with skill checks in a way that you usually can't with attack rolls.

With a failed skill check you can fail forward.
With a failed attack roll you can fall forward.

It's a subtle difference, but significant...

 

[glass]

Holy Word :: d20srd.org

This version perhaps?

No, that appears to be pretty much identical to the PF1 version.

You're probably thinking of holy smite. It excludes good creatures and has less effect on neutral creatures. Holy Smite :: d20srd.org

That does specifically call out neutral creatures (well, "creatures who are neither good nor evil"). But it specifically calls them out for a reduced effect. This does not fit @Vaalingrade's characterisation of "It calls itself Good while explicitly targeting Neutral folks for suffering."

None of this is to imply that Vaalingrade should like alignment in general (I am kinda ambivalent myself), or those specific spells. But they should not mischaracterise them. EDIT: Especially when there are so many things that are uncontraversially wonky, like pretty much all of the BoED. The "explicity good spell that tortures and brainwashes people" being a particular highlight.

_
glass.