-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Draz74
Comments on Individual Spells
That was an insightful summary.
Your comment on Disguise Self shows the fundamental flaw in 5E's core mechanic, though. DC 15 is intended to be a hard check, since normally you'll have only a +0 to +3 from your attribute, so this is not something most characters can do reliably. But it's something that will frequently happen randomly: as you say, 30% of commoners will see through your disguise immediately. This is because a 0-3 spread on attribute modifiers pales in comparison to the 1-20 spread on the die (and 5E has no notion of "trained only" skills, and being trained makes only a minor difference anyway).
That's right, this is the game where ordinary commoners can randomly succeed on a Very Hard check one time out of ten. Very Hard is defined as something that "only especially talented individuals need even try", such as physically breaking out of manacles, or recalling esoteric information known only to a few. I repeat, one out of ten commoners can do this! Frankly this system is absurd.
Question to the Playground: can we come up with a simple fix for this problem? I'm sure it's not a problem to everybody; but if WOTC truly wants to maximize their market share, they should at least include a module or optional rule for those of us that are bothered by this.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kurald Galain
That was an insightful summary.
Your comment on Disguise Self shows the fundamental flaw in 5E's core mechanic, though. DC 15 is intended to be a hard check, since normally you'll have only a +0 to +3 from your attribute, so this is not something most characters can do reliably. But it's something that will frequently happen randomly: as you say, 30% of commoners will see through your disguise immediately. This is because a 0-3 spread on attribute modifiers pales in comparison to the 1-20 spread on the die (and 5E has no notion of "trained only" skills, and being trained makes only a minor difference anyway).
That's right, this is the game where ordinary commoners can randomly succeed on a Very Hard check one time out of ten. Very Hard is defined as something that "only especially talented individuals need even try", such as physically breaking out of manacles, or recalling esoteric information known only to a few. I repeat, one out of ten commoners can do this! Frankly this system is absurd.
Question to the Playground: can we come up with a simple fix for this problem? I'm sure it's not a problem to everybody; but if WOTC truly wants to maximize their market share, they should at least include a module or optional rule for those of us that are bothered by this.
Use the same rule that every game has (including D&D 5e).
Only roll for important things.
Otherwise you get such wonderful things as the merchant not being able to see you because he rolled a 1 on his spot check, or the guard is incapable of hearing you because he rolled a 1 on his listen check, or the experienced blacksmith falling into his forge because he rolled a 1 on his check to move across the cluttered floor of his workshop.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kurald Galain
Question to the Playground: can we come up with a simple fix for this problem? I'm sure it's not a problem to everybody; but if WOTC truly wants to maximize their market share, they should at least include a module or optional rule for those of us that are bothered by this.
Use the attribute instead of the attribute modifier, and increase the DCs of all check by 10 to compensate. 20 Strength adds a +20 to a check, instead of +5, and a relatively easy task is DC20 instead of DC10. This will allow very high attributes to scale faster than the difficulty (giving a sense of actual heroics at higher power levels - A Raging Barbarian 20 might actually be capable of Kool-Aid Manning through walls, for example) while increasing the range of bonuses in a meaningful way. It also helps keep odd values on attributes relevant.
EDIT
Wait, how did your post get above mine? Are you from the future?
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kurald Galain
That was an insightful summary.
Your comment on Disguise Self shows the fundamental flaw in 5E's core mechanic, though. DC 15 is intended to be a hard check, since normally you'll have only a +0 to +3 from your attribute, so this is not something most characters can do reliably. But it's something that will frequently happen randomly: as you say, 30% of commoners will see through your disguise immediately. This is because a 0-3 spread on attribute modifiers pales in comparison to the 1-20 spread on the die (and 5E has no notion of "trained only" skills, and being trained makes only a minor difference anyway).
That's right, this is the game where ordinary commoners can randomly succeed on a Very Hard check one time out of ten. Very Hard is defined as something that "only especially talented individuals need even try", such as physically breaking out of manacles, or recalling esoteric information known only to a few. I repeat, one out of ten commoners can do this! Frankly this system is absurd.
Question to the Playground: can we come up with a simple fix for this problem? I'm sure it's not a problem to everybody; but if WOTC truly wants to maximize their market share, they should at least include a module or optional rule for those of us that are bothered by this.
The quick fix (that still has problems of its own), is to increase all DC's by 10 (while further increasing DCs for hard and very hard checks), and to roll d20 + Ability SCORE instead of d20 + Ability modifier.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
wadledo
Use the same rule that every game has (including D&D 5e).
Only roll for important things.
Otherwise you get such wonderful things as the merchant not being able to see you because he rolled a 1 on his spot check, or the guard is incapable of hearing you because he rolled a 1 on his listen check, or the experienced blacksmith falling into his forge because he rolled a 1 on his check to move across the cluttered floor of his workshop.
That is not a simple solution, that is just handwaveing things away, leaving the resolution mechanic to the DM's whim.
Of course you should not roll for every thing that comes up, but rolling for guards to see through a disguise should be one of the things you roll for.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Menteith
Use the attribute instead of the attribute modifier, and increase the DCs of all check by 10 to compensate.
That is a good and clear start, but a str-10 commoner would still have a 10% chance of breaking a Very Hard (DC 29) chain. It would probably work if you spread the DCs a bit more; if you think about it, "Hard" has no business being only 3 points (15%) more difficult than the next easier category.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
wadledo
Use the same rule that every game has (including D&D 5e).
Only roll for important things.
That doesn't work, because seeing through a disguise spell of someone trying to fool you, and breaking out of manacles that are holding you, are important things. And commoners (or low-perception low-strength 1st level characters) can do these things WAY more often than they should.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kurald Galain
That is a good and clear start, but a str-10 commoner would still have a 10% chance of breaking a Very Hard (DC 29) chain. It would probably work if you spread the DCs a bit more; if you think about it, "Hard" has no business being only 3 points (15%) more difficult than the next easier category.
Tentatively - use DC20 as a base and increase the DC by 5.5 (rounding down) for each catagory?;
DC20 for everyday things (under no pressure, a common person can accomplish the task by taking 10, and it might not even be possible for an exceptional individual to fail.)
DC25 for harder, but still possible, tasks (normal individuals will need to take 20 to reliably succeed, while exceptional individuals will be able to succeed a reasonable amount of time on their first try.)
DC 31 for very hard tasks (impossible for normal individuals, and even exceptional individuals will struggle with the task. Only the best of the best can accomplish these tasks quickly and reliably.)
And so on. I think it makes more sense to have a DC31 be present for Hard tasks (a normal person can't take 20 to succeed), but maybe it's just me.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kurald Galain
Question to the Playground: can we come up with a simple fix for this problem? I'm sure it's not a problem to everybody; but if WOTC truly wants to maximize their market share, they should at least include a module or optional rule for those of us that are bothered by this.
I'd try and "fix it" by re-wording the spell to indicate that you don't get to make a "check" to break the illusion unless an NPC has a particularly good reason to be doing so.
If you're walking down the street as some random "off-the-top-of-your-head" human, then there is no reason for a commoner to look at you twice. If you're walking down the street as a particular non-famous person (perhaps the brother of the Captain of the Guard), you would only attract attention from people who would want to talk to that person, which likely means that commoners ignore you, but the actual Captain of the Guard can make a check. And if you stroll down the street as the King? Well, everyone's going to be paying attention to you, so you deserve the DM pulling out an online dice roller and making 100d20 checks to see if anyone rolls above a 15.
Granted, it doesn't solve the larger issues I have with the skill system, but there should be some common-sense language built into each spell/item that could create the possibility of multiple opposed checks.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by
wadledo
Use the same rule that every game has (including D&D 5e).
Only roll for important things.
Otherwise you get such wonderful things as the merchant not being able to see you because he rolled a 1 on his spot check, or the guard is incapable of hearing you because he rolled a 1 on his listen check, or the experienced blacksmith falling into his forge because he rolled a 1 on his check to move across the cluttered floor of his workshop.
You cast the spell on your entire party to disguise yourselves in order to enter the count's estate. There are two guards at the door, and 5 PCs in the party. Not at all an unreasonable situation. Assuming both guards get to make separate checks for all of you as you pass by individually, and assuming they get no bonus, the chance that you all pass by the guards undetected is (7/10)^10 = 2.8%.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kurald Galain
That's right, this is the game where ordinary commoners can randomly succeed on a Very Hard check one time out of ten. Very Hard is defined as something that "only especially talented individuals need even try", such as physically breaking out of manacles, or recalling esoteric information known only to a few. I repeat, one out of ten commoners can do this! Frankly this system is absurd.
Question to the Playground: can we come up with a simple fix for this problem? I'm sure it's not a problem to everybody; but if WOTC truly wants to maximize their market share, they should at least include a module or optional rule for those of us that are bothered by this.
Honestly if this bothers you the easiest is probably still just to convert to 3d6. Rolls of 19-20 are now impossible to the commoners, and it makes everything less swingy so especially talented individuals are the only ones who can even attempt the hard stuff.
Of course some say the swingyness is part of the fun of the system, but you can't please everyone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Draz74
Weird; in contrast to the general reaction around here, I was impressed by this latest playtest packet overall. Sure, there are still dozens of little problems, but this is the first round of rules I've seen that gives me hope that Next could turn out to be a better overall game than 3e Core.
It's what you focused on I think. Seems you went to magic, I went for martial.
And frankly, martial needs work. I still can't believe anyone thought 1d10 to 3 opponents at level 10 was in any way a good deal to make. And that blows all your Exp Dice
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by
wadledo
Use the same rule that every game has (including D&D 5e).
Only roll for important things.
Otherwise you get such wonderful things as the merchant not being able to see you because he rolled a 1 on his spot check, or the guard is incapable of hearing you because he rolled a 1 on his listen check, or the experienced blacksmith falling into his forge because he rolled a 1 on his check to move across the cluttered floor of his workshop.
You don't auto-fail a skill check on a nat 1, though, that's only on attacks and saves.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
And presumably everyone's taking 10 on stuff they can take 10 on. Under zero pressure, an experienced blacksmith isn't going to fall into their forge. If they're being chased by a ravening ghoul, well, then it's possible, and a really low roll might result in that, even without autofailing on a 1.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
I think that wadledo had it wright. Roll for what's important.
That "what's important" criteria is important because many rules are written with that presumption in mind. The rules aren't a mechanical simulation of the world's mechanics. Instead, they are a mechanical means of inserting uncertainty into the narrative. Failure must be a possibility if you are to have tension.
In 3e terms, losing out to a 1st level commoner is an insult. In Next terms, losing out to a 1st level commoner is exactly what the designers want. It may not happen often, but it is always possible.
The designers also aren't designing for consistency. In this edition, they want variation at the tables. They want each group implementing the game in a way that works for the group. They exactly want the DM making decisions on the fly.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Clawhound
In 3e terms, losing out to a 1st level commoner is an insult. In Next terms, losing out to a 1st level commoner is exactly what the designers want. It may not happen often, but it is always possible.
The point is that by the current rules, it will happen often.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
For disguise self, I'd only roll if the person knew the person you were disguising yourself as, and only if they're actually interacting with you, or studying you closely. If you walk by a commoner on the street as someone they know, no check is made. Similarly, walk by a guard as someone they don't know, again no check. Walk by a guard as a noble they've seen a few times, and they get to make a check.
I'd also rule that if you're disguised as someone they know very well, IE a close friend or family member, then they can make the check even if they just see you in passing, and if they are interacting with you then they get advantage on the check.
With this, the rules work out much more logically, but I agree that this kind of thing should be written explicitly in the rules.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by
AgentPaper
For disguise self, I'd only roll if the person knew the person you were disguising yourself as, and only if they're actually interacting with you, or studying you closely. If you walk by a commoner on the street as someone they know, no check is made. Similarly, walk by a guard as someone they don't know, again no check. Walk by a guard as a noble they've seen a few times, and they get to make a check.
I'd also rule that if you're disguised as someone they know very well, IE a close friend or family member, then they can make the check even if they just see you in passing, and if they are interacting with you then they get advantage on the check.
With this, the rules work out much more logically, but I agree that this kind of thing should be written explicitly in the rules.
Its not a question of criteria, when you should roll, or when you shouldn't.
The point is that even against untrained commoners (when you decide they need to make the check) the disguise spell does nothing. And that is far away from the only example.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tehnar
Its not a question of criteria, when you should roll, or when you shouldn't.
The point is that even against untrained commoners (when you decide they need to make the check) the disguise spell does nothing. And that is far away from the only example.
Untrained commoners have a fairly low chance of detecting you. It's only when they get to roll a lot, IE when every commoner you run into gets to make a check for every person that'd disguised, that the issues start to appear.
If you're only getting a check rolled on you 3-4 times over the course of your disguise, you've got pretty good chances to get by.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by
AgentPaper
Untrained commoners have a fairly low chance of detecting you. It's only when they get to roll a lot, IE when every commoner you run into gets to make a check for every person that'd disguised, that the issues start to appear.
If you're only getting a check rolled on you 3-4 times over the course of your disguise, you've got pretty good chances to get by.
As a counterpoint,
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Craft (Cheese)
You cast the spell on your entire party to disguise yourselves in order to enter the count's estate. There are two guards at the door, and 5 PCs in the party. Not at all an unreasonable situation. Assuming both guards get to make separate checks for all of you as you pass by individually, and assuming they get no bonus, the chance that you all pass by the guards undetected is (7/10)^10 = 2.8%.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Menteith
As a counterpoint,
With my rules for how the checks are made, this would mean that the 5 PCs are all disguised as 5 different notable nobles, who the guards have seen before fairly often (IE: They live there), AND the guards are alert and actively looking at every single person coming in. In that case, yes, you have a pretty damned low chance of getting by, as you probably should.
On the other hand, if you plan better, you'll instead disguise one member up as a noble, and then disguise the other 4 party members as retainers/servant/etc to that noble. Now, each of the guards gets to do a single check, giving you a 56% chance of getting by.
Of course, this is still assuming that the guards are alert and actively searching. If they aren't, then they don't get to make a check at all, or at best, they get one check at disadvantage. Or you simply dress everyone up as washmaids and no checks are made in the first place, unless you run into a bunch of other washmaids, or mistakenly dress up someone as a washmaid who happens' to be one of the guard's wife.
Anyways, I agree that the spell is broken, I just don't think changing the DC will fix the issue. Even if you make it so that the guards have to roll a 20, you'd still only have a 60% chance of getting through. Pass through a crowd of 10, and you've got a 7% chance of not being spotted at all.
The only way to change that would be to make the roll impossible altogether for commoners to make, but I don't think anyone thinks that's a good idea. Instead, it'd be much better for the check to be made only in special circumstances. That way, you can retain the tension of not being sure that the disguise will work when you do something crazy, but if you're just walking around normally, nobody will give you a second glance.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Even if each guard makes one check for the entire group, you only have 49% chance of success.
The very basic mechanic of 5E is very bad, thats why this causes so much problems. 1d20+X, where X <= 5, against DCs that start with 10, is a bad resolution mechanic since its no better then throwing a coin to determine the outcome of a action.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Stubbazubba
You don't auto-fail a skill check on a nat 1, though, that's only on attacks and saves.
And if your modifer is +4 or less?
Then you fail on a one, auto doesn't come into it.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Like I said earlier: not everybody considers this a problem, but clearly numerous people do. So it would be a good idea if WOTC wrote a module or optional rule to draw in those people. And by "good idea" I mean "more marketshare".
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tehnar
Even if each guard makes one check for the entire group, you only have 49% chance of success.
The very basic mechanic of 5E is very bad, thats why this causes so much problems. 1d20+X, where X <= 5, against DCs that start with 10, is a bad resolution mechanic since its no better then throwing a coin to determine the outcome of a action.
To be honest, I feel like most of my issues can be put under this box. Sure, I wish that (Dis)advantage had functional stacking, or that the mundane classes stacked up a bit better, or that the magic item loot rules weren't pants-on-head dumb, but at its core, my issue with D&D Next is that a 1d20 resolution mechanic doesn't work for me when the static bonuses are small. It's also a part of why I don't enjoy playing low level 3.5/Pathfinder as much as mid levels. If they offer a solid 3d6 module, or alter the system to use Attribute+1d20 instead of Attribute Mod+1d20, or pursue another option that doesn't let a palsied cripple knock down a door a Raging Half-Orc Barbarian can't 10% of the time, then I might enjoy the system more.
Randomness is fine, and is integral to many systems. Over the top randomness, which clashes both with what I find fun and what would make sense in the world, is not fine.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
The DCs are one issue. The number of rolls is another.
I don't know what can be done about the DCs in a bounded accuracy system. They're screwed up, and without inventing extra subsystems (really, 1d20+Stat might as well be 1d10+stat or 1d6+stat; it's a non-unified resolution mechanic either way) I don't know if it's possible to ... screw them down?
The fail chance based on number of die rolls is easier to reconcile.
Ideally, something like "sneaking past guards while disguised" should either be a simple, unopposed skill check ... or part of an extended skill check like a skill challenge. Use something like 4e's passive perception as a DC; rolling for the guards just increases the chaos in the system
-O.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by
obryn
I don't know what can be done about the DCs in a bounded accuracy system.
That's actually very easy. You increase the range on the static modifiers, so that they are no longer eclipsed by the 20-point spread on the die. Then you do some easy math and write down new numbers for easy/moderate/hard DC based on statistics rather than gut feeling.
Quote:
rolling for the guards just increases the chaos in the system
It doesn't, actually. Having multiple rolls is less random than having a simple roll. That's because if you roll 1d20 you have no idea what the result is going to be, but if you roll 3d20 then you have very good odds of getting a result in the 30-33 range.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kurald Galain
It doesn't, actually. Having multiple rolls is less random than having a simple roll. That's because if you roll 1d20 you have no idea what the result is going to be, but if you roll 3d20 then you have very good odds of getting a result in the 30-33 range.
Isn't that contradictory thinking?
If you roll 3d20 and can expect to get a result somewhere in the 30-33 range, then a single d20 can be expected to get you a result between 10-11, on average.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by
wadledo
Isn't that contradictory thinking?
If you roll 3d20 and can expect to get a result somewhere in the 30-33 range, then a single d20 can be expected to get you a result between 10-11, on average.
That's incorrect. It's not about averages but about standard deviation. Lower SD means less randomness, and more dice means lower SD.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kurald Galain
That's incorrect. It's not about averages but about
standard deviation. Lower SD means less randomness, and more dice means lower SD.
Yes, but in this case you are not combining the total rolls, you are taking each individual roll and determining the result from there.
So 3d20 has the same odds of each individual dice (the only thing we really care about in this scenario, I would think) rolling any particular number as in a 1d20.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kurald Galain
That's actually very easy. You increase the range on the static modifiers, so that they are no longer eclipsed by the 20-point spread on the die. Then you do some easy math and write down new numbers for easy/moderate/hard DC based on statistics rather than gut feeling.
It's the bounded accuracy bit that's the issue. In order to do this, you also need to have a wider range of bonuses and DCs.
Quote:
It doesn't, actually. Having multiple rolls is less random than having a simple roll. That's because if you roll 1d20 you have no idea what the result is going to be, but if you roll 3d20 then you have very good odds of getting a result in the 30-33 range.
If both rolls are on the same side of the table, this is true; in that case, you have a curve, whether you're adding your numbers together or taking the better of two. If the rolls are on opposite sides, it's just increasing variability; there's no curve involved. Unusual results become more likely, not less.
-O
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by
wadledo
Yes, but in this case you are not combining the total rolls, you are taking each individual roll and determining the result from there.
I think the suggestion was to roll a player's skill against a guard's passive value, instead of rolling player's skill against a guard's skill check. The former is actually more random.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kurald Galain
I think the suggestion was to roll a player's skill against a guard's passive value, instead of rolling player's skill against a guard's skill check. The former is actually more random.
No, it's not. Here's the basic illustration.
Let's say I have a +7 Sneak. The Guard has a +4 perception.
If we use a Passive value, and I need to meet or exceed the guard's skill check, I need a 7 or better to succeed. I succeed 70% of the time.
Let's say we're making opposed rolls. I can get from an 8 to a 27 on my d20 roll. The guard can get from 5 to 24 on his. There's no curve involved for either of our rolls - they're straight d20 - so each of these values has an even frequency for each of us.
Look at it in terms of my DC. My DC is no longer set; it's floating. It averages to a 14.5, but that's not an average with any real central tendency to it, since it's based on a single flat-curve d20 roll. It's even chances my DC will be 5, as it is it will be 24. On average, my success rate is still 70% or so; it hasn't changed. But I have a greater degree of uncertainty in my results. The variability has increased.
Move to the guard rolling 3d6 instead. Now he has a central tendency to hit right around 14.5. The variability has decreased from a flat d20 roll.
Now the guard is taking the average result of 200 1d20 rolls. It's very, very likely my DC will be around 14.5 because the curve has again increased its central tendency, and it will continue to do so as the curve narrows.
The final state is 100% central tendency ... or setting the DC to 14.5. At that point, we're back at Passive DCs, and the overall variability in the system is vastly reduced from opposed d20's.
-O
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by
obryn
No, it's not. Here's the basic illustration.
Let's say I have a +7 Sneak. The Guard has a +4 perception.
If we use a Passive value, and I need to meet or exceed the guard's skill check, I need a 7 or better to succeed. I succeed 70% of the time.
Let's say we're making opposed rolls. I can get from an 8 to a 27 on my d20 roll. The guard can get from 5 to 24 on his. There's no curve involved for either of our rolls - they're straight d20 - so each of these values has an even frequency for each of us.
The first case is 1d20+7 vs. 14. The latter is effectively 1d20-1d20+3 vs 0, which does have a curve.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Knaight
The first case is 1d20+7 vs. 14. The latter is effectively 1d20-1d20+3 vs 0, which does have a curve.
True! Whoops. :smallsmile: Even so, you're increasing the overall variability in the system, which is my main point.
Take another example. I have a +10 to sneak. The guard has a +0 to perception. Against a flat DC of 10, my chance of failure is literally 0%. I cannot get below an 11.
If we add a die roll to the guard, my DC range, instead of being a flat 0, ranges from 1 to 20. My chance of failure is distinctly non-zero at this point. Variability is increased.
-O
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by
wadledo
Use the same rule that every game has (including D&D 5e).
Only roll for important things.
Otherwise you get such wonderful things as the merchant not being able to see you because he rolled a 1 on his spot check, or the guard is incapable of hearing you because he rolled a 1 on his listen check, or the experienced blacksmith falling into his forge because he rolled a 1 on his check to move across the cluttered floor of his workshop.
You only get those things if a one is an autofail, which it is not for skills in any of 3.0, 3.5, PF, 4th edition, or Next.
So no problem. The merchant can see you, even on a 1; the guard can hear you, even on a one; and the blacksmith doesn't fall into his forge, even on a one. And you can roll for things and expect reasonable results, even on a one. Because the game rules work reasonably well.
Except in D&DNext where any dweeb can beat VERY HARD DCs with a fairly good chance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
wadledo
And if your modifer is +4 or less?
Then you fail on a one, auto doesn't come into it.
The things you list are all DC0 or less in 3.x.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Doug Lampert
You only get those things if a one is an autofail, which it is not for skills in any of 3.0, 3.5, PF, 4th edition, or Next.
So no problem. The merchant can see you, even on a 1; the guard can hear you, even on a one; and the blacksmith doesn't fall into his forge, even on a one. And you can roll for things and expect reasonable results, even on a one. Because the game rules work reasonably well.
The things you list are all DC0 or less in 3.x.
Actually, the rules for Spot and listen are kinda wonky in 3.5.
+1 to the DC per 10 feet, and +5 if the person is distracted. So they only need to be distracted and 10 feet away.
And it's a Uneven flagstone floor (the modifiers for balance don't go into non-narrow surfaces having an increased difficulty for difficult surfaces, interestingly), then the Blacksmith has failed his check by 5 or more, so he falls.
So the things I listed are not DC 0 checks (or, at least, one is not, and the other two are situational).
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by
wadledo
Actually, the rules for Spot and listen are kinda wonky in 3.5.
+1 to the DC per 10 feet, and +5 if the person is distracted. So they only need to be distracted and 10 feet away.
And it's a Uneven flagstone floor (the modifiers for balance don't go into non-narrow surfaces having an increased difficulty for difficult surfaces, interestingly), then the Blacksmith has failed his check by 5 or more, so he falls.
So the things I listed are not DC 0 checks (or, at least, one is not, and the other two are situational).
Explain to me why any of this wouldn't involve taking 10 in a 3.X system?
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Menteith
Explain to me why any of this wouldn't involve taking 10 in a 3.X system?
Because if you do that, then for one thing, why bother with dice at all? You could do even better and not roll for pointless rolls.
In addition, if you took ten, then how can Kurald Galain argue about how Standard deviation is relevant to the situation or not?:smallwink:
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by
wadledo
Because if you do that, then for one thing, why bother with dice at all? You could do even better and not roll for pointless rolls.
In addition, if you took ten, then how can Kurald Galain argue about how Standard deviation is relevant to the situation or not?:smallwink:
The problem is that "pointless" rolls are a really subjective thing - what is and isn't a pointless roll is arbitrary. This has come up a few times already, because it's a pretty big core issue with D&D Next's mechanics.
Taking 10 has very clear limits on how it's used, which make sense to me from both a balance and verisimilitude perspective. Most people, when they're not under pressure, will be taking 10 if it's going to result in a success. This is why expert swimmers don't die every 20 laps, or why we can hear each other. And in situations where one can't take 10, it still makes sense (at least to me) - even if you know your way around a forge, you may very well trip into it if you're being chased by a ravening hellbeast or something, and you're under pressure.
In D&D Next, in order to avoid downright silly situations (like a venerable drunk cripple with no combat experience wrestling down and pinning a raging barbarian), you can't actually use the rules for resolving the conflict if you want a reasonable outcome (a 3 Str character will win against a 20 Str a depressing amount of the time). You can't actually use the mechanics of the game to resolve issues like that unless you're comfortable with the lowest possible strength beating the highest possible strength in a contest reasonably often (last I checked, a 17str difference will result in the low strength character winning ~10% of the time). And if you say "no" to that check, should you say "no" to other, similar checks? If a Dragon grapples a Wizard, does the Wizard even get a roll to resist it (it may very well be the exact same strength difference as the situation above).
Because the bounded accuracy system places a significantly higher weight on a variable, as opposed to a static modifier, there are a host of situations where the elite of the elite will completely and utterly fail, and the dregs with the lowest possible scores will succeed. The frequency with which this occurs is troubling. The only way to subvert this currently is to simply not allow rolls when the DM would disapprove of the check. There is going to be an issue every time a player points out that they actually have a decent chance at success, and the DM tells them no with the reasoning "I don't think it's realistic". There needs to be a more robust way of dealing with this than leaving it entirely up to a the DM in a highly subjective manner.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Menteith
The problem is that "pointless" rolls are a really subjective thing - what is and isn't a pointless roll is arbitrary. This has come up a few times already, because it's a pretty big core issue with D&D Next's mechanics.
In D&D Next, in order to avoid downright silly situations (like a venerable drunk cripple with no combat experience wrestling down and pinning a raging barbarian), you can't actually use the rules for resolving the conflict if you want a reasonable outcome (a 3 Str character will win against a 20 Str a depressing amount of the time). You can't actually use the mechanics of the game to resolve issues like that unless you're comfortable with the lowest possible strength beating the highest possible strength in a contest reasonably often (last I checked, a 17str difference will result in the low strength character winning ~10% of the time). And if you say "no" to that check, should you say "no" to other, similar checks? If a Dragon grapples a Wizard, does the Wizard even get a roll to resist it (it may very well be the exact same strength difference as the situation above).
I fail to see how the above isn't true of any edition of D&D, or any game for that matter. A pointless roll is not an issue with D&D Next, but instead an issue with role playing games in general.
You seem to be saying that since D&D Next has rules for something, it always, absolutely must be used, even when other options exist for the same situation.
For example, you could roll, take ten, or forgo the check, all of which are valid options. But only the last makes sense to me, since the merchant not being able to see you is not something that needs to be held in question unless the story calls for it, the PC's are doing something that would require the merchant to need to spot, or you want to roll for everything.
In addition, you seem to be contradicting yourself. You say that you can not use the rules as written to achieve a reasonable outcome, but in this scenario, for example, the old man poses no or little threat.
So why can't the barbarian take ten in his attempt to pin the man? As an event in a game, it's not particularly important that the old man be grappled or not.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
It might be impossible to manage in an RPG, but I'd kind of like to see physical stats (and aging, including pre-adult stats) handled at least semi-realistically. I know my Str, Dex, and Con can fluctuate by several points each in a three-month span depending on activity.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Quote:
And if you say "no" to that check, should you say "no" to other, similar checks? If a Dragon grapples a Wizard, does the Wizard even get a roll to resist it (it may very well be the exact same strength difference as the situation above).
We've had this argument before, but it seems to me that if the town cripple having a chance against the ragin barbarian is way out line, then the 100lb soaking wet wizard shouldn't have a chance against the 5 ton dragon either.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by
1337 b4k4
We've had this argument before, but it seems to me that if the town cripple having a chance against the ragin barbarian is way out line, then the 100lb soaking wet wizard shouldn't have a chance against the 5 ton dragon either.
Unless of course the wizard is a PC, in which case you should allow them to roll, because you are not playing to simulate reality (otherwise you wouldn't be playing), but instead playing for fun, and it's more fun to allow players a chance to succeed (however small) than simply kill them.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by
wadledo
Unless of course the wizard is a PC, in which case you should allow them to roll, because you are not playing to simulate reality (otherwise you wouldn't be playing), but instead playing for fun, and it's more fun to allow players a chance to succeed (however small) than simply kill them.
Okay, so actually make that chance small. That's all anybody's been saying.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Highlights from the new package:
- Rogues got hit with a nerftruck (love how Sneak Attack is now a weaker, more situational Deadly Strike; great job WotC), with fewer proficiencies and maneuvers than Fighters, and less HP, their only edge being additional skill training (very bad).
- Retarded overtly specific skills of 3.5 past have been sadly re-implemented (bad).
- OP Sorcs (and less OP Warlocks) have been removed (good until WotC figures out how to make them not degenerate).
- The notorious encounter breaker Cause Fear was taken out (should have just been revised but sure).
- Infamous Illusion school destroyer True Seeing has been reintroduced at full strength and a lower spell level (bad).
- WotC introduced a game breaking synergy via the Master Sneak and Stealthy Escape feats (bad).
- Illusionist Wizards are all kinds of badass, their glaring True Seeing vulnerability notwithstanding (good). Dislike how they can't use Disguise Self at-will (bad).
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Surrealistik
Highlights from the new package:
- Rogues got hit with a nerftruck (love how Sneak Attack is now a weaker, more situational Deadly Strike; great job WotC), with fewer proficiencies and maneuvers than Fighters, and less HP, their only edge being additional skill training (very bad).
- Retarded overtly specific skills of 3.5 past have been sadly re-implemented (bad).
- OP Sorcs (and less OP Warlocks) have been removed (good until WotC figures out how to make them not degenerate).
- The notorious encounter breaker Cause Fear was taken out (should have just been revised but sure).
- Infamous Illusion school destroyer True Seeing has been reintroduced at full strength and a lower spell level (bad).
- WotC introduced a game breaking synergy via the Master Sneak and Stealthy Escape feats (bad).
- Illusionist Wizards are all kinds of badass, their glaring True Seeing vulnerability notwithstanding (good). Dislike how they can't use Disguise Self at-will (bad).
[*]Rogues got hit with a nerftruck (love how Sneak Attack is now a weaker, more situational Deadly Strike; great job WotC), with fewer proficiencies and maneuvers than Fighters, and less HP, their only edge being additional skill training (very bad).
-If you want pure melee damage, you should play a fighter, under optimal circumstances, a rogue can deal a fighter level of damage, but their schtick is skills and battlefield mobility. If any class can fight in melee as well as a fighter, something is wrong. Sneak attack before was boring and very swingy. If you could get it consistently the rogue was overpowered, if you rarely got it the rogue sucked. Now rogues have lots of options and can be built the way you want.
[*]Retarded overtly specific skills of 3.5 past have been sadly re-implemented (bad).
-Yes, I'd prefer a more condensed skill system, but you should see skill training as a small bonus, your attribute is what's really important.
[*]OP Sorcs (and less OP Warlocks) have been removed (good until WotC figures out how to make them not degenerate).
Sorc wasn't OP, and was always just a "hey look at this" thing for gencon. Remember preparation casting is waaaaaay better than spontaneous casting.
[*]Infamous Illusion school destroyer True Seeing has been reintroduced at full strength and a lower spell level (bad).
No arcane caster should rely entirely on one trick, and it's important to give players the tools to overcome challenges. I do feel it should only overcome illusions level 5 or lower however, and make a higher level true seeing.
[*]WotC introduced a game breaking synergy via the Master Sneak and Stealthy Escape feats (bad).
It's powerful, but game breaking? First you need cover or concealment to pull it off, and there are lots of ways around it. Stealthy Escape is fine, Master Sneak may be a little problematic(I don't like feats that remove all risk from taking an action).
[*]Illusionist Wizards are all kinds of badass, their glaring True Seeing vulnerability notwithstanding (good). Dislike how they can't use Disguise Self at-will (bad).
They are powerful, but illusion is always a high risk scenario. Unlimited Disguise self would be a)overpowered, and b)not follow the design they are seeming to do with. Signature spells seem like they are combat spells, ensuring a wizard always has at least one decent spell every fight.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheOOB
[*]Infamous Illusion school destroyer True Seeing has been reintroduced at full strength and a lower spell level (bad).
No arcane caster should rely entirely on one trick, and it's important to give players the tools to overcome challenges. I do feel it should only overcome illusions level 5 or lower however, and make a higher level true seeing.
Eh, I don't really like True Seeing for the same reasons I don't like Antimagic Field or Rust Monsters. They basically just pick out certain types of characters and say "Hey you, congratulations! You get to sit in the corner with your thumb up your ass while your other party members do all the real work."
I'd much rather it work by introducing a complication rather than an outright "No" button. Like, being in an antimagic field means you have to suffer ASF, or you have to expend two spell slots for each casting.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Craft (Cheese)
Eh, I don't really like True Seeing for the same reasons I don't like Antimagic Field or Rust Monsters. They basically just pick out certain types of characters and say "Hey you, congratulations! You get to sit in the corner with your thumb up your ass while your other party members do all the real work."
I'd much rather it work by introducing a complication rather than an outright "No" button. Like, being in an antimagic field means you have to suffer ASF, or you have to expend two spell slots for each casting.
Yeah, for true seeing I'd like to see something like "every Illusion spell allows a Wis save when you interact with it, but true seeing allows a Wis save when you first see it." It doesn't give you a capability you didn't already have, it just makes it a lot easier to use.
For AMF, making it more like a zone of automatic dispel magic would be good. You enter the AMF (or someone casts it where you are), you get hit with a dispel magic each turn you're in the area and as a counterspell each time you try to cast a spell. It allows both traditional uses of AMFs ("stick the mage in a cell and prevent him casting anything" and "a beholder suddenly suppresses your buffs") without making it an off switch for magic.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
You know your resolution mechanic has problems when you decide that simply comparing static numbers (as by taking ten) gives better results than rolling the dice would.
Besides, it doesn't solve the issue here. You can always declare you're under stress and roll anyway, and when you do you suddenly have a 10% chance of breaking out of iron manacles with only an average strength score.
Quote:
If you want pure melee damage, you should play a fighter, under optimal circumstances, a rogue can deal a fighter level of damage, but their schtick is skills and battlefield mobility.
Yes, we get that, but the point is that the rogue's schtick doesn't work too well. In 4E, a fifth-level rogue has 7 or 8 powers plus sneak attack; in 5E, a rogue has only two powers at that level. If you take e.g. Sneak Attack and Skill Mastery, you've got no room left for battlefield mobility.
Also, I note that fighters can pick from the same list of powers as rogues do; so you can make a fighter with Sneak Attack and Skill Mastery, and get a third power before level 5, and a better attack bonus and more hit points for free. Rogues suck in the current playtest.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Actually, no, if you read page 1 of the maneuvers file, it has separate lists for fighters and rogues. Sneak Attack is NOT on the fighter list.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kurald Galain
Yes, we get that, but the point is that the rogue's schtick doesn't work too well. In 4E, a fifth-level rogue has 7 or 8 powers plus sneak attack; in 5E, a rogue has only two powers at that level. If you take e.g. Sneak Attack and Skill Mastery, you've got no room left for battlefield mobility.
That's an incredibly false comparison, since in 4e basic powers did some of the same things skills do in 5e, as well as having 20 levels more progression wise than the 5e rogue.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by
wadledo
That's an incredibly false comparison, since in 4e basic powers did some of the same things skills do in 5e, as well as having 20 levels more progression wise than the 5e rogue.
No, it's really not. A 4E rogue can do high damage, and mobility, and skill mastery straight out of the box from level one (as a matter of fact, so can a 3E rogue). A 5E rogue, in the current playtest, can still not do all of that at level five. That's a very clear comparison.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheOOB
-If you want pure melee damage, you should play a fighter, under optimal circumstances, a rogue can deal a fighter level of damage, but their schtick is skills and battlefield mobility. If any class can fight in melee as well as a fighter, something is wrong. Sneak attack before was boring and very swingy. If you could get it consistently the rogue was overpowered, if you rarely got it the rogue sucked. Now rogues have lots of options and can be built the way you want.
Are we looking at the same design documentation? Literally the only difference between the fighter and rogue is what I've mentioned, excepting a few maneuvers unique to each class which don't make much of a substantive difference, and skill training for the rogue. The rogue is flat out awful in this package.
On Skills:
I don't see skill training as being otherwise; my problem is primarily with the overtly broad skill array (though I think training should be more important than it is).
On Sorcerers:
You haven't been building your sorcs right. Cause Fear spam + Heavy Armour, Defender specialization, Shield (spell and item) and the L5 packet version of Mirror Image active made them near invincible one man armies (just better than a 1/100 chance of being hit by a +2 attack bonus mob). My sorc literally didn't take damage once throughout the entire playtest despite being main tank, while repeatedly crushing encounters about singlehandedly with Cause Fear.
Spontaneous casting was better than prepared in 5e as of the Sorcerer playtest packet since spontaneous casting got access to nearly all of the best spells of a limited set anyways, and could spam them all day.
On True Seeing:
Straight up school destroying no/win buttons are bad. A single spell or even a handful should not completely thwart an entire school. No one is going to convince me otherwise; we will never agree. I also do not approve of your solution, as it does not actually address the problem of a single spell hard countering an entire school.
On Stealthy Escape + Master Sneak:
Game breaking may be a bit of an exaggeration, but it's not much of one. It completely circumvents one major limitation of Stealth that keeps it balanced, which is action expenditure; now I can get advantage every round, and my opponent will have difficulty detecting and attacking me, especially given that there's no charging in this game. At the cost of two feats, Stealth has been made massively more powerful. As an aside, this is doubly true if you have an illusionist wizard to provide you with concealment whenever you want it, or you _are_ said wizard (at-will Minor Image baby).
On Illusion/Illusionists:
Again, you seem to believe True Seeing is acceptable game design and a fair and acceptable counter to Illusion as a school. I feel you are wrong.
As for Disguise Self, I'm again uncertain as to whether we're reading the same document. The spell is a massively limited cantrip version of its 3.5 self (frankly, the at-will Minor Image they get with auditory and visual components is vastly more powerful), and it is perfectly consistent with the current design convention of the wizard having a limited set of level 0 spells it can use at-will. It is absurd that it doesn't get Disguise Self as one of these at-will L0s.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kurald Galain
No, it's really not. A 4E rogue can do high damage, and mobility, and skill mastery straight out of the box from level one (as a matter of fact, so can a 3E rogue). A 5E rogue, in the current playtest, can still not do all of that at level five. That's a very clear comparison.
Except, of course, that 5e is not 4e or 3e. So it ends up being apples and oranges.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by
wadledo
Except, of course, that 5e is not 4e or 3e. So it ends up being apples and oranges.
Except the point isn't that it's not the 4e rogue, the point is that it's not filling its supposed role effectively.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Flickerdart
Sneak Attack IS the defining ability of the Rogue, though. The fact that he can use it a lot doesn't cheapen it, because he still needs to put effort into getting it off. Maybe he takes pains to position himself for flanking, and is an acrobatic tumbling Rogue. Maybe he attacks from the shadows with a bow and arrow, and is a sneaky archer Rogue. Maybe he turns himself invisible, and is a magical trickster Rogue. Maybe he feints the enemy, and is a useless Rogue. But he doesn't just say "I want to deal +2d6 Sneak Attack to this enemy, make it so!".
Not in 4e, no. In 4e a Rogue basically says "I sneak attack it with X".
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by
wadledo
Except, of course, that 5e is not 4e or 3e. So it ends up being apples and oranges.
Huh? You're suggesting that we can't compare 5E to earlier editions, when it's being explicitly marketed as taking the best parts of and being an improvement over all earlier editions? I don't see how that argument makes sense.
The 5E rogue, in the current playtest, doesn't do what it's advertised to do; doesn't do what rogues do in earlier editions; and compares unfavorably to the fighter. That, to me, is a clear design flaw that needs to be remedied in the next playtest.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kurald Galain
Huh? You're suggesting that we can't compare 5E to earlier editions, when it's being explicitly marketed as taking the best parts of and being an improvement over all earlier editions? I don't see how that argument makes sense.
The 5E rogue, in the current playtest, doesn't do what it's advertised to do; doesn't do what rogues do in earlier editions; and compares unfavorably to the fighter. That, to me, is a clear design flaw that needs to be remedied in the next playtest.
On the other hand, right now the rogue is the -only- class in the game that gets meaningful skill scaling as you level. Skill mastery is actually really good in the context of DDN in that it is the only thing that provides meaningful scaling to skills. At first level, it's +2.5 on average, by level 10, your bonus is on average like +7.97. To all 8 of your skills. Consider everyone else has gotten in that time +5 to a single skill (assuming the skill increase with levels haven't changed I haven't had a chance to review that section in depth yet).
Or at least that would be worth something if skills were allowed to be useful.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by
RedWarlock
Actually, no, if you read page 1 of the maneuvers file, it has separate lists for fighters and rogues.
Yes, but the fighter option that lets you make your own style states that you can pick maneuvers from the complete list. To me, this suggests that a fighter is allowed to take rogue maneuvers (although that may not have been what WOTC intended).
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheOOB
-Yes, I'd prefer a more condensed skill system, but you should see skill training as a small bonus, your attribute is what's really important.
Unfortunately your attribute is also a small bonus.
(edit) Hm, I just noticed that the fighter has a dead level at 5 and 7, where he gains literally nothing but HP. Even his attack bonus and expertise dice don't change. The rogue likewise has a dead level at 5.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheOOB
-Yes, I'd prefer a more condensed skill system, but you should see skill training as a small bonus, your attribute is what's really important.
Oh, so I should be able to, say, weave a tapestry perfectly without actually studying the trade at all, because my Int bonus is high enough for a Craft check? That would explain why school is a waste of time, my Knowledge skills were already high enough from my Int that I didn't need to actually learn anything.
I think it's the other way around. Your training (skill points) should outweigh your base ability (stats).
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Not only do the Rogue and the Fighter have separate lists to pick their maneuvers from (which means the Fighter can't pick Skill Mastery), but the Rogue also gets Skill Mastery as a bonus Maneuver at Level 1. As in, in addition to whatever Maneuver he actually chooses.
So at Level 4, your Rogue could have Sneak Attack, Tumbling Dodge, and Skill Mastery, which covers the three "bases" Kurald is talking about.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to claim that the current Rogue isn't weak. But I'm saying it's not as weak as it seems if you missed some details in the rules.
If Level 5 is the standard we're going to judge by, let's see how the Fighter and the Rogue compare:
Fighter has ~12 more HP, +1 better attack rolls, and better weapon selection. Also better armor selection, which will only matter if he doesn't focus on Dex, making him slightly less MAD than the Rogue (but at the cost of being able to do Dexterous things like sneaking). He has 2d6 Expertise and knows 4 Maneuvers, including Deadly Strike.
Rogue has 4 more Trained skills, as well as Thieves' Tools Proficiency (which seems to be the 5e equivalent of Trapfinding). He likewise has 2d6 Expertise dice, and he knows 3 Maneuvers, including Skill Mastery. We might as well assume he has Sneak Attack as well, which is almost the same as Deadly Strike. (In practice, you should always be able to qualify for Sneak Attack ... same as 3e and 4e.)
So, basically ... yeah, the Rogue is significantly weaker in combat than the Fighter. But this is more because of the ~12 more HP, +1 attack, ~+2 damage (if he goes for a big weapon), and lesser MAD than it is because of Expertise or Maneuvers. 4 combat maneuvers vs. 2 is significant, but not necessarily unreasonable. (And I find the Maneuvers lists roughly comparable overall.)
And the Rogue, meanwhile, is unquestionably more useful and reliable outside of combat.
I'd prefer a little more combat/noncombat parity between classes, myself. But this actually seems to be pretty much in line with what some of the WotC designers have stated is their intent for the Fighter and Rogue.
EDIT: of course at Level 6 the Fighter jumps ahead of the Rogue in combat by whole new leaps and bounds ...
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
What if, instead of providing a bonus, you could only increase your skill in something up to a maximum of your attribute bonus for that skill?