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

[James Gasik]

Which is precisely my point. If an option has a particular threshold for failure, people aren't going to keep trying it- definition of insanity and all that.

Because "check to get hostile creatures to cooperate as long as they aren't taking a risk or sacrificing anything by doing so", doesn't sound to me like it should require a ridiculously high DC.

I would expect a DC 20 to be "check to get hostile creatures to cooperate". This smacks of a bias to make sure players fight monsters as opposed to talk to them. Which just tells players they need to be Diplomancers with Expertise in Persuasion if they don't want to risk wasting their time.

Since, in most respects, your chance at succeeding at a skill check is often the same as your chance to hit, it comes down to, what level would you expect players to face an AC of 20?

You probably shouldn't see DC's of 20 any sooner than that.

 

[Vaalingrade]

1E and earlier also had alignment languages, FWIW.

Chris Currie said:
Alignment mechanics in previous editions seemed to boil down to:
1. If your alignment tag doesn't match with the alignment tag of x item, take damage (or suffer effect).
2. If your alignment tag doesn't match, you can't use this class/item/thing.
3. If you change your alignment tag you lose a level.

It's not like any edition had deep mechanics.

Let's not forget:

• Indiscriminately murder or debilitate anyone without your alignment tag (includes 'good' people just sandblasting neutral commoners out of existence and striking the rest blind)
• Changing your character's alignment against their will then expecting them to continue roleplaying the altered husk of what you created.
• Allowing Paladins to dictate the party composition and RP choices.

 

[Reynard]

You probably shouldn't see DC's of 20 any sooner than that.

DCs aren't supposed to be level based in 5E. they are supposed to represent objective difficulty to perform a task. Nothing screws the PCs quite like always upping the DCs to match their level so there is always a 50% or whatever chance of success.

In any case, there shouldn't be a single difficulty for getting hostile creatures/NPCs to stop fighting. Every time that comes up, it is going to be a unique set of circumstances. Sometimes it is going to be automatic (it was a misunderstanding!), sometimes it might be hard (DC 15 but you get advantage because you're a dwarf) and sometimes it is going to be impossible (the Death Knight is not persuaded, sorry).

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The social pillar is woefully undersupported, mechanically speaking. yet people think they need to resort to dice as often as with the combat pillar. That's the problem.
Dice are only used if there is uncertainty in the outcome.

that is what is missing. Rules (even optional) that support exploration and Social interactions as much as combat... heck half as much as combat

 

[James Gasik]

The fact that DC's aren't in any way tethered to level is logical- it shouldn't be harder to climb a tree at level 20 than at level 1, but it does create some very odd problems when setting DC's. Most of the time, DC's seem to be set higher than I'd like them to be for characters with lower chances of success.

But then, when characters do get abilities like Expertise, they can make checks pretty much all the time, to the point where it sometimes feels like we shouldn't bother asking them to roll at all. "Oh yeah, right, Observant and Expertise in Perception, yeah, you see it."

5e, IMO, needs rules for "degrees of success". The social interaction rules take a stab at it, but I think it could be done better for all aspects of the system.

Like, "this is failure", "this is failing forward", "this is success". "This is critical success for you lucky SOB's and optimizers".

Some might want to add some kind of "super failure" but I'd be against that since it would only punish players who can't afford to be competent at every task.

 

[James Gasik]

Just had this thought in another thread. Monster knowledge/identification rules.

 

[SteveC]

I just want to point out that this is a game where a 20 Charisma final tier character with a +6 proficiency mod has a 40% chance to fail that roll. Most characters have a lot worse chances.

A simple "hey let's work together unless we have good reasons not to" shouldn't be an extremely hard check, and I can certainly imagine players, after trying it a few times and not rolling 15 or better on the die to realize it's just not worth the effort.

I'll agree with that and say that the whole DC system really needs to have an overhaul, or at least discuss some of the assumptions. I find that most checks are too difficult and seem to assume something like Guidance or Aid is happening. A flat 20 seems poorly thought out when there are so many other options. It would also be nice to see that under the Intimidate skill itself.

The GM in this case is just getting his feet under him, so this derailed the combat for a few minutes until he made a ruling (I and one of the other players were hoping he would do just that). He ended up doing Intimidate vs Will save as an opposed check. When that initially failed, the Paladin did a smite that obliterated one of the bandits, and tried again. The GM did another roll with Advantage, which was perfectly cool with all of us.

 

[billd91]

The fact that DC's aren't in any way tethered to level is logical- it shouldn't be harder to climb a tree at level 20 than at level 1, but it does create some very odd problems when setting DC's. Most of the time, DC's seem to be set higher than I'd like them to be for characters with lower chances of success.

But then, when characters do get abilities like Expertise, they can make checks pretty much all the time, to the point where it sometimes feels like we shouldn't bother asking them to roll at all. "Oh yeah, right, Observant and Expertise in Perception, yeah, you see it."

I think it's also worth noting that the game actively advises against rolling when it's not absolutely necessary due to the amount of uncertainty or stakes. If a PC has a hard time climbing a tree but isn't under significant pressure (like being shot at by a goblin with a bow), then it isn't particularly important to roll - they may have a little trouble, get stuck for a moment, have to back track down a limb or so to approach from another direction. But as long as there's no significant pressure, it's OK to wave it off as done. No need to worry about that DC.
But that PC with expertise - he can scamper up that tree even when being shot at because he can make that roll.

5e, IMO, needs rules for "degrees of success". The social interaction rules take a stab at it, but I think it could be done better for all aspects of the system.

Like, "this is failure", "this is failing forward", "this is success". "This is critical success for you lucky SOB's and optimizers".

The DMG does address some of those issues, but I wouldn't mind seeing a broader and stronger treatment of the topic.

 

[James Gasik]

The assumption of an effect like Guidance does seem to be present, but I've heard people claim that Guidance was a mistake (and apparently the developers have said so?), and there seems to be a lot of pushback towards players who want to use Guidance often.

Heck, when I suggested a player can throw out a Guidance every 10th turn for whatever die roll someone might need to make out of combat, I was told something to the effect that "that would be narratively ridiculous to me".

My analogy, a Sorcerer refreshing Dancing Lights ever 10th round for hands-free light sources, was also ill received, but I see that happen all the time at tables. /shrug

There does seem to be a lack of consensus about how difficult the game should be- I usually try to be a player advocate, because when I play the game, I look at what frustrates me and figure I can't be the only one.

Some people want D&D characters to be heroes, and others want them to be The Mystery Men (look it up if you haven't seen it!). And the developers don't seem to want to come out and say which is a more apt description, so the people who play and DM this game keep butting heads about it.

 

[Reynard]

Just had this thought in another thread. Monster knowledge/identification rules.

The Level Up monster manual is great for this. I feel like a previous edition MM did it too, but I can't recall for certain.