-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Seerow
Not sure I like this. It makes a very major part of the system reliant on DM May I gameplay.
That feels like a video game mechanic. You do something and it triggers a roll to see if a sentry shows up? If the player is keeping track of patrols he should be able to judge whether or not a sentry will be coming in within a window of 30-60 seconds or so.
So if you enter stealthfully, you get bonuses to disabling. That's good... until you add the part where disabling includes talking your way past guards. So you enter stealthily, and then exit from hiding to talk to the guard to bluff your way past him, then go right back to being stealthy? It just seems like making killing/knocking out disabling, and bluffing past is a different subsystem (eg the social system).
And killing/knocking out is handled by the Initiative, Combat, and Sneak Attack subsystems. There should be a "Re-hide" stealth check, and ability to make a guard second-guess seeing something (Like hiding again before it can take any actions)
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Scow2
And killing/knocking out is handled by the Initiative, Combat, and Sneak Attack subsystems. There should be a "Re-hide" stealth check, and ability to make a guard second-guess seeing something (Like hiding again before it can take any actions)
Honestly I don't mind having knocking out a couple guards who are unaware of you as a part of the stealth system. That's something that's never been handled well in D&D, but is pretty iconic in fiction.
Maybe it only works on lower HD enemies or something, and past a point you have to go to initiative/combat. But if you want a good exploration minigame, you need to be able to bypass mook guards without full blown combat. And in D&D that's really not possible.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Seerow
Not sure I like this. It makes a very major part of the system reliant on DM May I gameplay.
I didn't explain this right: It doesn't work like D&D circumstance modifiers (which really are just DM fiat), it's more like Wushu's "you get extra dice for each piece of detail you add to what you're doing" but modified somewhat, since your descriptions aren't your only source of bonuses. If you come up with something cool you get bonuses by default (unless it's so inappropriate or stupid that I have to veto it). My goal with the system is to make the players feel like they're superninjas while still making stealth really dangerous and tense unless you know what you're doing.
Quote:
That feels like a video game mechanic. You do something and it triggers a roll to see if a sentry shows up? If the player is keeping track of patrols he should be able to judge whether or not a sentry will be coming in within a window of 30-60 seconds or so.
Lemme use the example of poisoning the stew.
You enter the kitchen covertly and the cook is absent for whatever reason (maybe because you successfully created a distraction to get him out of the kitchen for a few moments). You get out of your hiding place and put the poison in the stew. This succeeds automatically, but then I roll a 50/50 chance that the cook will suddenly decide to come back (if the cook *can't* come back, then I'll have someone else wander in to check on things, maybe an assistant): This result is secret and I ask the player what they want to do next.
Let's say they decide to high-tail it and get out of there: So long as they succeed at their Infiltrate check to get back out without causing any suspicion, it doesn't matter what I rolled because the cook has no chance to detect you're there at all.
But let's say they choose to stick around and keep messing about the kitchen (like swiping some expensive imported spices off the rack). If I rolled that yes, the cook does come back, then they need to make a Hide check as the cook comes back in as they're swiping the spices. If I rolled no, then they succeed at getting the spices without needing to make a Hide check and I roll again, then the process repeats as long as the player keeps hanging about the kitchen.
Messing around in places where you're not supposed to be is very risky: If you get to an empty room you get 1 free action to spend doing whatever you want, then after that you're playing chicken.
Quote:
So if you enter stealthfully, you get bonuses to disabling. That's good... until you add the part where disabling includes talking your way past guards. So you enter stealthily, and then exit from hiding to talk to the guard to bluff your way past him, then go right back to being stealthy? It just seems like making killing/knocking out disabling, and bluffing past is a different subsystem (eg the social system).
If you drop down from the ceiling right in front of a guard's face, come up with a bluff, then reattach to the ceiling then yeah, that's obviously absurd, but the assumption is when you enter the room covertly that the guard has no idea where you came from and once the guard is disabled they stop paying attention to what you're doing. You need to apply some common sense to the system for it to work but I don't really think of that as a problem.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Knaight
The caster levels don't really seem necessary - yes, there should probably be some kind of dragon that has them, but there's plenty of room for dragons that are well below human intelligence, do not speak, and are just big lizards that breath fire which might also fly. That still leaves the potential for them to be very dangerous for a number of reasons, which pretty much covers the core traits of "dragons", as pulled from european legend.
Thats more D@D cannon then anything else. I can and do run dragons as just big ass predators sometimes, about bear smart. Only a few are people smart.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Craft (Cheese)
If you drop down from the ceiling right in front of a guard's face, come up with a bluff, then reattach to the ceiling then yeah, that's obviously absurd, but the assumption is when you enter the room covertly that the guard has no idea where you came from and once the guard is disabled they stop paying attention to what you're doing. You need to apply some common sense to the system for it to work but I don't really think of that as a problem.
Rules that defy common sense when written was the biggest mark against Skill Challenges in 4th edition.
Please let's avoid having that clusterbomb again.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Scow2
Rules that defy common sense when written was the biggest mark against Skill Challenges in 4th edition.
Please let's avoid having that clusterbomb again.
But can it really unite all the editions without having that?
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Stubbazubba
So every single monster or instance of monsters ends up rolling to see you anyway, and we're pretty much back where we started.
If every single monster is rolling, the characters have already failed stealth. The point of stealth is that it removes unaware observers from the picture, potentially allowing a character to sneak past gaps in target location's security. You exploit opportunities left by unaware enemies, and then avoid alert enemies and obvious hiding spots like a plague. A skill roll, in these cases, is enabler and a fail-safe; it is not sole metric of how stealthy you are being.
More of my thoughts on the subject can be found in this thread.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tehnar
Since there is no definition of appropriate challenges, and no clear criteria of determining them (other then DM fiat) you have no right to dismiss those examples.
No, actually. I have every right to dismiss those examples because we were discussing a specific system which set out those rules you claim don't exist.
Of you're going to be pedantic, keep up. This was specifically about Person_Man's thing wherein "you roll only when it's appropriate" or similar was laid out – in which case no, 98# weakling, you don't get to roll to arm wrestle Conan, and any example which requires you to be too weak to win but also strong enough to win is absurd and inadmissible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Raineh Daze
Fine, replace 'world's greatest rogue' with 'world's greatest sneak'. The point's the same. They'll still fail to get past a crowd of party-goers.
Real world sneaks should probably inform this, yeah?
In which case, throw on a shirt from a nearby clothes line, pretend to be drunk, and lounge in the gutter. They may see you but you're still fictionally stealth'd.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Raineh Daze
Garrett, from Thief. It is entirely possible (and therefore the most narratively appropriate) for him to go through all three games without being seen or interacting with anyone except for those he needs to, whilst taking absolutely all the loot. And he pulls off that walking-down-a-street trick I mentioned. That is the world's greatest sneak; it is a completely different idea from the world's greatest planner.
There is a level of stealth skill where no amount of planning is going to affect the outcome. Just before that, the only planning you do is concerned with those who actually could spot you.
That's called invisibility, not stealth.
The walking down the street trick requires a man with a hat. Done.
Isn't this circular logic though? You should only have to plan for those who can see you. They can see you so you should plan for ten, except you shouldn't have to plan for them because they shouldn't be able to see you because... Why?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Scow2
I... kind of agree with this approach, but passive sentries should still be a threat. Right now, you're thinking of "The Party's awesome rogue". I'm thinking of "The darkmantle on the cieling, or bugbears in the shadows." And, at higher levels, "The assassins sent to kill you."
Sentries – people who are paid and trained to stand there and watch are not passive observers. They are active observers and as such do not need to be considered in whether passive observation should be a thing when they are distracted (boredom, comely wench or serving lad, talking to a decoy) they are no longer actively searching. Problem solved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
tasw
given the level of life long training I would put your average rookie knight at 6th level.
The knight is the warrior who can do solo stuff reliably, but also works well in groups. The lowest level at which you can reliably strap on armor, heft shield and sword, and go do something important for your lord is about where knighthood should sit.
In next, I would say this is third level; potentially 36 HP, expertise dice, and sufficient feat investment to be a worthwhile opponent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Seerow
That feels like a video game mechanic. You do something and it triggers a roll to see if a sentry shows up? If the player is keeping track of patrols he should be able to judge whether or not a sentry will be coming in within a window of 30-60 seconds or so.
"You shouldn't have to keep an eye on patrols i you're a great sneak, just use your high stealth score and be functionally invisible. Of you're tracking patrols, you're mediocre."
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
There's still an issue with the reliance on RP'd stuff - anyone can RP. Why should I play a Rogue with ranks in Hide or whatever when another class can do the same stuff almost as well (with the differences only coming out in worst-case scenarios, where both have a reasonable chance of success or failure) - plus any number of other things! If these rules stay the same, we have to abandon the idea that skills can meaningfully balance classes. As the rules are, being able to hide well practically amounts to fluff.
This isn't necessarily bad. It doesn't seem to be what people want, though.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Craft (Cheese)
Infiltration rolls are your ability to covertly move from place to place through hidden passageways: Crawling along the ceiling rafters, through ventilation ducts, etc. Your character gets a roll to determine whether they find any route they can use or not, but the player can get huge bonuses to this roll by describing what they want to do with what's in the area (or what would likely be in the type of area they're in). Players are encouraged to ask the DM for details about the make-up of the area and come up with their own crazy ideas to infiltrate successfully.
I'm with Seerow in that it almost seems a little backwards to put so much player narrative power in something as puzzle-like as a Stealth challenge. What I would do is generate a small list of environmental features that might be of use in Stealth encounters. This can be done before the session or on the spot if necessary. Things like open windows, covered drains, conveniently-placed clotheslines, etc. Then let the PCs search for and use these. That feels more appropriate to me.
Quote:
Disable rolls are actually several different types of roll, but the basics of the system is that you get a sentry in the area to stop actively searching for you, either by literally knocking them out or killing them, or disabling them more metaphorically through disguises or guile. "Hi, I'm with the Acme termite extermination company..." If you enter an actively patrolled area covertly, you get a bonus to any Disable attempts.
This will be the meat of the interesting part of the system, and needs to have a lot of panache to work right. I'd probably expand it into a whole list of various Stealth encounters. Taking down guys in secret and bluffing your way past guards can use two different systems, and probably should. Bonuses from being covert would apply to some, but not others (the aforementioned bluff example). Poisoning a stew or swiping the royal seal would also be among these Stealth encounters.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BayardSPSR
There's still an issue with the reliance on RP'd stuff - anyone can RP. Why should I play a Rogue with ranks in Hide or whatever when another class can do the same stuff almost as well (with the differences only coming out in worst-case scenarios, where both have a reasonable chance of success or failure) - plus any number of other things! If these rules stay the same, we have to abandon the idea that skills can meaningfully balance classes. As the rules are, being able to hide well practically amounts to fluff.
This isn't necessarily bad. It doesn't seem to be what people want, though.
Because the rogue can handle the situations where "The **** hits the fan" far better than everyone else? Which, as an adventurer, comes up VERY often.
The rogue's shtick isn't even necessarily being great at sneaking - it's that he has twice as many skills as anyone else, a reliable way of delivering the fastest-scaling source of damage in the game, and having a number of other tricks up his sleeve.
My problem with "Active sentries are constantly rolling" - why wouldn't a sentry be taking 10 on his check? Rolling has a 50% chance of him NOT seeing what he's looking for. Him taking 10 on the check is the DM saying that "Given these guy's environmental awareness, it would take a DC (11-16, more if they have a WIS boost). Just roll the skill die for each of them, and you have a bit of swing but not the chance of a simple sentry forcing the rogue to beat a DC 26 stealth check.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BayardSPSR
If these rules stay the same, we have to abandon the idea that skills can meaningfully balance classes.
I think that sounds like a good move, in general.
-O
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Scow2
The rogue's shtick isn't even necessarily being great at sneaking - it's that he has twice as many skills as anyone else...
But if everyone has about the same effectiveness with skills, and the primary determinant is roleplaying, that doesn't matter.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SiuiS
No, actually. I have every right to dismiss those examples because we were discussing a specific system which set out those rules you claim don't exist.
Person_man's post that Water Bear quoted had nothing to do with any mechanic of rolling when appropriate. Let me repost it here (with Water bear quoting the part I bolded):
Spoiler
Show
Fair enough. OK. So let's assume the following:
1) D&D Next should be a fun game, which is about the roleplaying, exploration, and combat of a small (1-8) party of Player Characters in a fantasy world. (Not mass combat, not "what would happen if..." situations that rarely happen in a typical D&D game).
2) The math which models the PCs actions in and out of combat should be relatively simple and intuitive.
3) If an action is something that a heroic humanoid could theoretically do, there should be some reasonable minimum chance of success, so that the PC never feels as if can't do things unless they invest in it.
4) If a player does level up and invest in being really amazing at something, they should have a reasonably high chance of success at that thing, but not so high that it's automatic.
What would your ideal math be? I ask honestly because I'm open to different ideas on this, not facetiously to try and prove a point.
Yes, the world's greatest Rogue might be noticed by a random Barbarian 1 out of 5ish times. But I'm ok with that, because in an actual D&D game, you don't want any challenging action to have a 100%ish chance of success, because then it's not a challenge, and it starts to destroy game balance, and it makes the game less fun.
To provide another example, lets say I optimize my Barbarian's to hit and damage so that I hit 95% of the time and kill 95% of enemies in one hit. But other people in my party aren't as good at optimization as I am, or they focus on non-combat things. Is combat still a challenge for me? Will it still be fun? Will the imbalance in my party cause problems? In 3.X/PF, the answer was yes, and it caused endless headaches for the DM. I would prefer D&D Next to fix this problem, and I am open to alternative solutions.
Since Person_Man's post had nothing to do with any mechanic when to roll, you don't have justification for dismissal of anything, just poor reading comprehension.
Quote:
Of you're going to be pedantic, keep up. This was specifically about Person_Man's thing wherein "you roll only when it's appropriate" or similar was laid out – in which case no, 98# weakling, you don't get to roll to arm wrestle Conan, and any example which requires you to be too weak to win but also strong enough to win is absurd and inadmissible.
I am keeping this up because you fail at reading.
Even if Person_Man present a system to determine when to roll or not (he did not in the quoted post, and AFAIK he did not in this thread iteration), you don't have the right to dismiss Reductio ad absurdum arguments, because such arguments were made to point out inconsistencies in 5E's resolution system, not Person_Man's. As 5E currently has no mechanics (or guidelines) to determine when to roll or not Reductio ad absurdum arguments are perfectly valid.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
obryn
I think that sounds like a good move, in general.
Seconded. The idea that they ever could is just baffling.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Scow2
Because the rogue can handle the situations where "The **** hits the fan" far better than everyone else? Which, as an adventurer, comes up VERY often.
I wouldn't say 'far', but like 'marginally' I guess the word is extremely subjective in this context.
Let me put it a different way: the rogue can usually handle these situations when other classes do not. But the rogue will sometimes fail to handle these situations when other classes do.
The system is built around binary 'success' or 'failure'. There is no 'better' or 'worse'; there is only 'more likely to succeed' and 'less likely to succeed', translating into 'success' or 'failure' for any given instance. This means that in any given instance, the best rogue is more likely to succeed than the worst other-person, but instances will occur where the best rogue fails and the worst other-person succeeds.
Other people have offered amusing hypothetical examples; I won't add more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Scow2
The rogue's shtick isn't even necessarily being great at sneaking - it's that he has twice as many skills as anyone else, a reliable way of delivering the fastest-scaling source of damage in the game, and having a number of other tricks up his sleeve.
The thing is, if things stay the way they are, the 'twice as many skills' part is irrelevant for balancing the class. If the 'other tricks' are tied to skills, those are irrelevant too, because the mechanic does not have a meaningful influence on the power of characters.
But the rogue can still stab things, which is nice. Unfortunately, there are other classes built around stabbing things too. I hope this doesn't lead us into the 3.5-style "Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit" effect.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Clearly, if the game rewards taking two or three skills and specializing in them, and relying on your teammates for the other skills, then having twice as many skills as other characters is not going to make a class more powerful.
For instance, in 4E most characters have about four skills, but there exists a specific bard build that effectively has all of them. While this sounds cool, in practice if you have this character in the group, then the fighter or wizard are still going to be your primary guy for (e.g.) athletics and knowledge checks, simply because they're better at them, and you'll still end up making social checks almost all of the time because bards excel at those.
So having thirteen more trained skills than everybody else has an effective added value of close to zero. It's still a fun build, sure, but it's absolutely not overpowered (and may be underpowered depending on how much you give up to get these skills trained).
Just as how in 3E, getting more feats than everybody else failed to balance the fighter, so too in 5E, getting more skills than anybody else won't (by itself) balance the rogue.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kurald Galain
Clearly, if the game rewards taking two or three skills and specializing in them, and relying on your teammates for the other skills, then having twice as many skills as other characters is not going to make a class more powerful.
For instance, in 4E most characters have about four skills, but there exists a specific bard build that effectively has all of them. While this sounds cool, in practice if you have this character in the group, then the fighter or wizard are still going to be your primary guy for (e.g.) athletics and knowledge checks, simply because they're better at them, and you'll still end up making social checks almost all of the time because bards excel at those.
So having seventeen trained skills instead of four has an effective value of close to zero. It's still a fun build, sure, but it's absolutely not overpowered.
But, D&D Next has more skills than 4e did, so having multiple skills is still useful, and there are enough that a party of 4 with no rogues does NOT have all the skills it needs where they need to have them. They can get by, but the rogue's party has a wider set of skills to draw on OR double-down on for double effectiveness (using coordination)
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kurald Galain
Clearly, if the game rewards taking two or three skills and specializing in them, and relying on your teammates for the other skills, then having twice as many skills as other characters is not going to make a class more powerful.
For instance, in 4E most characters have about four skills, but there exists a specific bard build that effectively has all of them. While this sounds cool, in practice if you have this character in the group, then the fighter or wizard are still going to be your primary guy for (e.g.) athletics and knowledge checks, simply because they're better at them, and you'll still end up making social checks almost all of the time because bards excel at those.
So having thirteen more trained skills than everybody else has an effective added value of close to zero. It's still a fun build, sure, but it's absolutely not overpowered (and may be underpowered depending on how much you give up to get these skills trained).
Just as how in 3E, getting more feats than everybody else failed to balance the fighter, so too in 5E, getting more skills than anybody else won't (by itself) balance the rogue.
100% agreed.
WotC has recognized that D&D is about Exploration, Roleplaying, and Combat. I have no idea why they don't just design around those mostly separate sub-games, and just give every character equal-ish resources or tracks in each.
Everyone gets a set of Skills for Exploration - tracking, picking locks, disarming traps, athletics, perception, etc, and you get more if you have higher Intelligence.
Everyone gets a set of Traits for Roleplaying (Diplomacy, Bluff, Intimidation, Sense Motive, membership to organizations, useful contacts, languages, etc), and you get more if you have higher Charisma.
Everyone gets a balanced set of combat stuff (your class abilities).
Feats can cover any of the three areas, so that if you really want to specialize, you can do so, but without totally sucking in the other areas.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Scow2
But, D&D Next has more skills than 4e did, so having multiple skills is still useful, and there are enough that a party of 4 with no rogues does NOT have all the skills it needs where they need to have them. They can get by, but the rogue's party has a wider set of skills to draw on OR double-down on for double effectiveness (using coordination)
In a party of four with no rogues, the chance of everyone failing a given check is 31.6% (assuming everyone is as bad demihumanly as possible at that skill). This is only marginally worse than a single rogue (assuming the rogue is as good as demihumanly possible at that skill). With a party of five, the chance drops to 23.7% - less likely than the best (individual) rogue imaginable.
That only applies for checks that only require a single pass, like a listen or spot check. For a check that everyone must pass, like hide (assuming everyone's hiding) a four-strong party composed entirely of the best possible rogues will still get someone caught 68.4% of the time. A party with fewer rogues is even more screwed.
So ignoring coordination for the time being, adding a rogue to a party will, depending on the demands of the test, either make them marginally less bad (where everyone has to succeed) - or be less helpful than five random peasants would be (where only one person has to succeed).
Remember, all of these calculations were done assuming that the rogue is extremely good at everything, and that anyone else is completely incompetent at everything. If we used more realistic numbers, the situation would be even more dire.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Scow2
But, D&D Next has more skills than 4e did, so having multiple skills is still useful, and there are enough that a party of 4 with no rogues does NOT have all the skills it needs where they need to have them. They can get by, but the rogue's party has a wider set of skills to draw on OR double-down on for double effectiveness (using coordination)
I don't really see what you're arguing here. In this game - or in any version - skills have rarely been a particularly powerful part of a character's toolbox. The ability to hit things hard with a sword tends to be better than the ability to vertically jump X feet, if for no reason than rolling d20s to attack things tends to come up more often than rolling d20s to jump things.
(and let's not even talk about magic, which often looks at the meager limitations of skill checks and laughs at them.)
If you wanted skills to be an appreciable part of a character's strengths, then you would need to seriously buff them (I believe this would be true of any edition). You could do it, but I suspect you could only do so by overhauling the system such that skills are not a thing that you sometimes do when you're not swinging a sword or casting a spell, but an absolutely valid option to use in the heat of battle instead.
As an example, allow the poorly named "Break an Object" skill to allow characters to sunder weapons, allow "Intimidate" checks to prevent an enemy from attacking, and use "Recall Lore" to gain significant bonuses against particular enemies.
(and probably only allow characters trained in these skills to access these bonus features.)
As is, additional skills aren't bad, but they do not represent a very significant portion of a character's power. Even if we accept that currently, characters might the only party member trained in a particular skill, the value of that training is not particularly meaningful under the current skills system (as +1d6 is not as meaningful towards making a roll as the d20 you roll with it).
Put another way, the 3.5 Rogue is often cited as the stereotypical "skill monkey", thanks to the oodles of skill points they get (let us put aside that half of those typically go into rogue "only" skills), in a system that rewarded skill specialization, and included numerous ways to mitigate the d20 roll (primarily through the skill rank modifier, but also through ever increasing ability scores and the ability to "take 10". Yet I stammer to think of the time when someone examined the sum total of their skill expertise and said "wow, that's really powerful!"*
*There was a time, I remember, when 3e was released when everyone and their mother started their adventuring career as a rogue before jumping over to a Paladin or Monk for the skill points, but I think most would agree that was during a time when people were overvaluing skills.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ashdate
I don't really see what you're arguing here. In this game - or in any version - skills have rarely been a particularly powerful part of a character's toolbox. The ability to hit things hard with a sword tends to be better than the ability to vertically jump X feet, if for no reason than rolling d20s to attack things tends to come up more often than rolling d20s to jump things.
(and let's not even talk about magic, which often looks at the meager limitations of skill checks and laughs at them.)
If you wanted skills to be an appreciable part of a character's strengths, then you would need to seriously buff them (I believe this would be true of any edition). You could do it, but I suspect you could only do so by overhauling the system such that skills are not a thing that you sometimes do when you're not swinging a sword or casting a spell, but an absolutely valid option to use in the heat of battle instead.
As an example, allow the poorly named "Break an Object" skill to allow characters to sunder weapons, allow "Intimidate" checks to prevent an enemy from attacking, and use "Recall Lore" to gain significant bonuses against particular enemies.
(and probably only allow characters trained in these skills to access these bonus features.)
As is, additional skills aren't bad, but they do not represent a very significant portion of a character's power. Even if we accept that currently, characters might the only party member trained in a particular skill, the value of that training is not particularly meaningful under the current skills system (as +1d6 is not as meaningful towards making a roll as the d20 you roll with it).
Put another way, the 3.5 Rogue is often cited as the stereotypical "skill monkey", thanks to the oodles of skill points they get (let us put aside that half of those typically go into rogue "only" skills), in a system that rewarded skill specialization, and included numerous ways to mitigate the d20 roll (primarily through the skill rank modifier, but also through ever increasing ability scores and the ability to "take 10". Yet I stammer to think of the time when someone examined the sum total of their skill expertise and said "wow, that's really powerful!"*
*There was a time, I remember, when 3e was released when everyone and their mother started their adventuring career as a rogue before jumping over to a Paladin or Monk for the skill points, but I think most would agree that was during a time when people were overvaluing skills.
...why does everything have to be about Combat? Monsters are at their WORST when they're just an hour-or-two slogfest that you have to punch until it falls over, then get on with the quest.
If your campaigns don't make ability checks a big part (And are designed so that the inevitable skill failures can change the direction of the adventure but not end it unless it's atrocious) of the adventure, you're 'doing it wrong' because you're forgetting the "Dungeons" part of "Dungeons & Dragons."
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Scow2
...why does everything have to be about Combat? Monsters are at their WORST when they're just an hour-or-two slogfest that you have to punch until it falls over, then get on with the quest.
If your campaigns don't make ability checks a big part (And are designed so that the inevitable skill failures can change the direction of the adventure but not end it unless it's atrocious) of the adventure, you're 'doing it wrong' because you're forgetting the "Dungeons" part of "Dungeons & Dragons."
The problem with skills isn't their usefulness in the "Dungeon" (although I again point out that their usefulness has often been undermined in other editions of D&D, in part due to magic and poorly written skill systems), and not even really that - in the Next context - that "training" is fairly underwhelming in regards to succeeding on skills rolls.
The problem is if you're using skills as a measure to "balance" particular classes, then you're in for a lot of disappointment. Skills have simply never been that powerful, save perhaps for the days when Rogues got class specific "skills". Even if you spend a significant portion of your character's time using "skills" (and I'm certainly not against that!), the larger measure of a character's ability is going to come from the rest of the numbers and abilities on your character sheet.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Scow2
...why does everything have to be about Combat? Monsters are at their WORST when they're just an hour-or-two slogfest that you have to punch until it falls over, then get on with the quest.
If your campaigns don't make ability checks a big part (And are designed so that the inevitable skill failures can change the direction of the adventure but not end it unless it's atrocious) of the adventure, you're 'doing it wrong' because you're forgetting the "Dungeons" part of "Dungeons & Dragons."
Because minimum competency at combat is required to not die. Combat skills tend to directly correlate with ability to survive out-of-combat stuff going wrong. Because being unable to contribute to one skill check leaves you with nothing to do for a far smaller time (and you can probably improvise some way to help) than being nothing more than a combat liability.
If you can't help in combat at all, you're either dead or sidelined for far longer than if you can't contribute to one skill.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ashdate
The problem with skills isn't their usefulness in the "Dungeon" (although I again point out that their usefulness has often been undermined in other editions of D&D, in part due to magic and poorly written skill systems), and not even really that - in the Next context - that "training" is fairly underwhelming in regards to succeeding on skills rolls.
The problem is if you're using skills as a measure to "balance" particular classes, then you're in for a lot of disappointment. Skills have simply never been that powerful, save perhaps for the days when Rogues got class specific "skills". Even if you spend a significant portion of your character's time using "skills" (and I'm certainly not against that!), the larger measure of a character's ability is going to come from the rest of the numbers and abilities on your character sheet.
Skills work to shore up weak ability checks, or drive a strong one even higher. And there ARE some checks only a rogue can do, such as find and disarm traps, and open locks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Raineh Daze
Because minimum competency at combat is required to not die. Combat skills tend to directly correlate with ability to survive out-of-combat stuff going wrong. Because being unable to contribute to one skill check leaves you with nothing to do for a far smaller time (and you can probably improvise some way to help) than being nothing more than a combat liability.
If you can't help in combat at all, you're either dead or sidelined for far longer than if you can't contribute to one skill.
Minimum competency at ability checks should be similarly required to actually get anything done and not die doing it. If combat's taking too long, that's a different problem.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Scow2
Minimum competency at ability checks should be similarly required to actually get anything done and not die doing it. If combat's taking too long, that's a different problem.
It's a problem if combat is taking longer than a minute or two?
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Scow2
Skills work to shore up weak ability checks, or drive a strong one even higher. And there ARE some checks only a rogue can do, such as find and disarm traps, and open locks.
I think you're examining skills in a bubble where everything else on the character sheet doesn't matter. The rest of the stuff does matter, and it's that rest of stuff that more often defines a character (including their strengths) rather than the skills they picked to be trained in. And it's because of that rest of stuff that skills are overshadowed.
This has little to do with how much time the party spends in/out of combat, and more to do with the fact that
a) the game must go on. If not one in the party can pick a lock, them the DM has to work with that limitation.
b) skills are often easily replaceable. Don't have someone who can pick locks? Well, bash the door down. Or climb through the window. Or use a spell. The same can't always easily be said for many other aspects of the game, in particular combat.
c) Even assuming training and expertise in a skill, the limits places upon them rarely allow for such extraordinary feats such as to match the other abilities that a character has access to.
If you want skills to be a meaningful part of a characters "power level" (if you might allow me to use that phrase), then you need to make them extraordinarily useful. That would include (but yes, is not limited to) combat. It would also mean that training should be incredibly meaningful, which it currently isn't in the Next playtest.
(you're also mistaken about rogues; indeed, the ability to open locks and find and disarm traps aren't technically skills in Next, they're feats.)
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Person_Man
100% agreed.
WotC has recognized that D&D is about Exploration, Roleplaying, and Combat. I have no idea why they don't just design around those mostly separate sub-games, and just give every character equal-ish resources or tracks in each.
Everyone gets a set of Skills for Exploration - tracking, picking locks, disarming traps, athletics, perception, etc, and you get more if you have higher Intelligence.
Everyone gets a set of Traits for Roleplaying (Diplomacy, Bluff, Intimidation, Sense Motive, membership to organizations, useful contacts, languages, etc), and you get more if you have higher Charisma.
Everyone gets a balanced set of combat stuff (your class abilities).
Feats can cover any of the three areas, so that if you really want to specialize, you can do so, but without totally sucking in the other areas.
This guy gets it. Having to match my skills to my combat abilities has always been my least favorite part of D&D.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Here's a funny question, which I realize is never going to be valuable because the D&D Next people aren't going to read it... should skills be binary?
What I mean is, rather than having skills be d20 + Modifier, why not just have them be "You can do X Now", and maybe have some tiers of what X is?
If your Skill rating is equal to the tier rating, you have to make an Ability check at DC 12. If your Skill rating is above the tier rating, you succeed, and if it's below, you fail.
So hiding is Tier 0, but moving quickly while hidden is +1, and moving where there's not enough darkness is +1. You need Sneak 2 to move quickly through non-shadowy areas and be able to stay hidden. If you have Sneak 0, you can't use that as an option.
Climbing a rope is Tier 0, but a cliff face is Tier 1 and a smooth wall is Tier 2. If you have Climb 2, you can always climb the castle wall. It's just an extra adventure option for you.
Crafts 1 lets you craft various mundane goods, and Crafts 2 lets you craft masterwork goods. It's automatic, it just takes time and materials.
Jumping 1 adds a certain distances to your jumps.
And so on, and so forth. Save the randomness for combat and direct challenges, and use Skills to improve your breadth of abilities. Then having more of them is more valuable. You start the game with a few Tier 1 skills, and you can add more or upgrade them as time goes on.
(For this to work, I assume that there wouldn't be a lot of tiers of each skill. I'm sort of imagining the following scale:
0 - Just an adventurer
1 - Trained
2 - Expert
3 - Legend)
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Honestly, the best way to do skills in a D&D-like game is probably something close to the old Non-Weapon Proficiencies.
You get a bunch of NWP slots which are mostly separate from your combat customization abilities, with more at higher levels but a decent number starting out as well. Each one you can choose (ideally; I'm ignoring the lame ones like "heraldry") covers an entire skill set or profession rather than a single specific task. Their effectiveness is mainly about ability scores, but more specialization can and does significantly boost your odds. And they all (again, ignoring the lame ones) open up new ways to interact with the world rather than just being essentially pay-walls for roleplay.
The best I've seen it done is in Adventurer Conqueror King's Proficiencies, but 2e's NWPs were still pretty good for the most part. And both naturally light-years ahead of our current skill system.
Plus it gives you an "in" with the grognards, which is a big part of 5e's hype.