D&D 5th Edition makes the New York Times

[Nero24200]

I would like the organic feel that 3.5 classes had (at least compared to 4e) and the balance of 4e. As much as I preffered 3.5 there were some things 4e just got so right in my book (like giving the fighter actual abilities instead of just feats, making non-wildshape druids viable etc).

And well...options, if I can play a wizard who isn't assumed to be only blasty by the developers or a fighter with some more variety other than "he deals obscene amount of damage via X" I'll be happy.

[pasko77]

So to sum up, we the Playground collectively demand from WotC that when 5e is released we should see that it...

1. has similarities to 4e
2. has no similarities to 4e
3. has similarities to 3e
4. has no similarities to 3e
5. has similarities to AD&D
6. has no similarities to AD&D
7. uses vancian casting
8. doesn't use vancian casting
9. has a small list of generic classes
10. has a wide lists of unique classes
11. has better social skills
12. has no social skills
13. puts more fluff in splatbboks
14. puts less fluff in splatbooks
15. has strong multiclassing
16. has no multiclassing
17. is well balanced
18. puts less emphasis on being "balanced"
19. gives powers to everyone
20. doesn't have powers for fighters
21. is revolutionary, fresh and visionary
22. stays true to its roots and still feels like DnD

and last but not least
23. doesn't break the fanbase in half and provoke massive edition wars.

Is there anything anyone else wants ot add or should I print this off already and mail it to WotC?

You forgot a request for "more motorbikes" earlier in this thread.

[Raimun]

I really wish they would design classes and their abilities without assuming that the characters live on a 20x20 square battle map. While 4th edition combat is fast (and fun too, mind you) because of how abilities work, it does feel a little too inflexible to me at times. I also don't like the lack options. Why shouldn't I be able to pick up Craft (basket weaving) at higher levels if I want to? Or multiclass to Sorcerer or that funny Prestige Class I read about? Even if I'm maxing out my previous skills and aiming for 9th level spells, the options are still there.

So, more versatility and options. While things can get out of hand in 3.5, at least the system never felt like it forced you to play Generic Fantasy Hero nro 578... even if you eventually became one by your own free will.

I'm hoping they would be able to combine the best parts of 3.5 and 4th editions, ie. options (3.5) and smooth gameplay (4), or at least find a better balance between them.

Edit: P.S. Also, none of that "lose older powers to gain new ones"-stuff. What's up with that?

[Seerow]

That I disagree with. I mean it's all right if monsters not accessible to PCs have disproportionately high offense (minions) or disproportionately high defenses (elites). It makes sense in the game world to say these monsters are just like that(although a rules justification, like for example making dragon HD have 1d20 and poor BAB in 3.5, would be nice). However, I can't get behind doing the same thing with stuff that's accessible to PCs, like that Elf(presumably a playable race) Necromancer (presumably wizard, a playable class). How can you explain via in-game logic that a PC can't get similar abilities?

I don't particularly mind that little suspension of disbelief. If the players get upset that the BBEG has a little more HP than he should or is somehow getting some great action economy shenanigans, then that is something that can be explained away on a case by case scenario.

The thing is, if you want a humanoid boss, you shouldn't have to make the character a much higher level than the party to make it fit that role. Which is what D&D currently does. You make the character 4+ levels higher than the party, then use a lot of his low-mid level spells on long term buffs to make him tougher. Using an elite template just skips the middle muddling around and gets what you want without needing any sort of rules mastery to pull it off.

I don't personally see it as any more verisimilitude shattering than a DM using a gestalt character as a challenge in a game that is generally non-gestalt. And yes, I have seen this done without players caring.

If you have something on your character sheet that is a purely passive numerical bonus, you are likely to forget it is there, and certainly you'll feel gimped compared to players who actually have stuff to do besides, you know, hit him real hard. Take the "+2/+2 skill feats" for example. In RAW, they are deathly dull. In my houserules, they increase the bonus from a spent action point to xd10 (from xd6) on the relevant skill, and allow a re-roll once a day. Th player actually has a reason to consciously remember he has the feat.

You say this as if needing to remember the feat is actually important. You also make the assumption that passive feats also means passive characters who will do nothing but hit him real hard. I am not advocating the design of the 3rd edition fighter. Really, I'm not. I have said over and over everyone should get cool things, they should come via powers rather than feats. Hell in another thread I went so far as to suggest Fighter powers be called feats and rename feats to something like talents or perks so they can shake out of this mentality. Then Fighters CAN be the guys who get tons of feats, feats just mean something now. Meanwhile everyone gets more or less the same number of talents or perks, and they're typically more passive things.

That said, your sample feat would fit just fine with what I'd ideally want. The feat you brought up specifically modifies another ability of the character, which is fine. I don't really see how writing on your sheet "Roll d10s" as opposed to "Roll d6s" is something more interesting to remember than "Get +2 to damage", but something like that isn't something I'd be opposed to.

Basically feats (or whatever you want to call them) = Passive things that modify other things about the character. This could be base statistics or modifying powers, but still nothing that stands out as something that would be a worthwhile action of its own. Improved Trip as a feat as opposed to Rapid Shot.

[Tegu8788]

I think it might be interesting if, instead of "making a fighter like a wizard," they make wizard that has just a couple attacks, akin to the old style melee basic. It could be interesting, allowing you to play any role either simple attack style or full AEDU.

[Seerow]

…..thats it, I'm gonna go make a story about Edition Wars.

its going to be called Edition Warz, and its going to satirize this whole thing by portraying it as an actual war. Cause this is just getting silly.

I knew the storms where brewing for the most epic clash of rpg nerds ever.

I mean, look. There are the AD&D fans. And they are hardcore. Like, Old Testament hardcore. I mean, their game hates them, AND THEY LOVE IT! You can't go more hardcore than that.

Then there are the 3E fans. They are the Warhammer Orcs. They are the ****ing Green Tide! There's so many of them they'll seem like an endless ocean of hate. And their hate is still hot. And there are so many different groups among them that all have one thing in common: they hate each other more than they hate the others.

You have the "fighters should be fighting with lollypops" crowd. You have the "fighters should be farting thunder and lightning and killing multidimensional creatures by shooting their multidimensional-piercing-so-powerful-like-magic-yet-not-magic bullet sperm at them". Then you have the "no dices should be rolled at all" group. The "dices should be rolled for all" sect. The "Pathfinder rules" caste, the "3E is the one true way" caste, the "Tomes uber alles" caste, and god knows how many more splinter groups. Animosity tests will be failed! Chaos overwhelming!

Then you have the 4E crowd, which still keep their last shreds of self-dignity by deluding themselves that their game is good. And they will fight to the bitter end for their right to keep deluding themselves.

And you have the OD&D crowd. They are like ****ing Elder Gods. They were there before the beginnings of time. No one knows what they're saying, but they keep saying it, and damn if anyone is going to stop them from doing so.

And add to that the few, the bold, the unbreakable, the fans of other rpgs, completely unrelated to D&D, who will make partisan and pirate raids into the fray. WoD, nWoD, GURPS, Rolemaster, Warhammer... You ****ing name it.

And add to all THAT that is going to last for at least a year. AND THEN, you will have EACH of these groups split further, into those who support the 5E, and those who oppose 5E.

Yes, it will be a bloodbath of epic proportions. The Apocalypse, Ragnarok, the Final Confrontation is ahead of us.

That was posted by someone on another forum relatively recently. Thought you might enjoy it.

[Dark Kerman]

I think perhaps the Wizard's design team will have one hell of a time on there hands balancing this one...

In the words of Urpriest

Spoiler

Show

I want a game that 80% of 3.5 players, 80% of 4e players, 80% of Pathfinder players, and hey even 80% of Legend players, will agree is unambiguously superior. D&D is not the only RPG, not even the only dungeoncrawling RPG. What D&D's greatest virtue has always been is that everyone could agree on it. Easy to find a group, and you know what to expect when you find one. If you introduce someone to RPGs, you give them D&D. Like World of Warcraft, the whole point of D&D is being the proverbial 800 pound gorilla. D&D is the Giant in the Playground. If D&D isn't the majority game, if it isn't the default when people mention RPGs, if it isn't supremely confident in itself, then there is absolutely no reason beyond nostalgia for it to exist.

If they can manage that, then they truly will have succeeded, that's something i'm sure most of us can agree on.

Personally, I hope for more of an identity for each class, faster battles, and perhaps as a favourite of mine, and emphasis and preservation of fluff. The story is what drives the game, as much as vice versa, without a rich world to roam in, then all the quality mechanics in the world mean nothing (I'm not saying 4th didn't do this for the record, I just dislike how much stuff was retconned in regards to races etc). Conversely if the mechanics are rubbish, you may as well read a book.

Definitely the more broken aspects of 3rd would benefit from being solved. Whilst I don't mind power differences, trying to avoid things such as power loops etc. They can derail the games in some cases (According to preference). Maybe making combat feats more effective might solve the balance between melee and magic (though then that makes it neccessary for monsters to be stronger).

tldr: I have my preferences, but the design team should try to balance and please the majority of there existing fanbase. May Boccob grant them the knowledge of how to do so.

[Seerow]

redacted msg too short

[Dark Kerman]

Thanks, now, then, let's hide the evidence! I think I rather misspoke my point on that one. It required too many qualifiers!

[Tyndmyr]

How is it 5 or 6 years later the 4e is like WoW myth is still around?

It's not a myth. The designers explicitly said they designed it to be like a video game. I sort of have to take their word on that.

It's just a system without any internal logic and unique to D&D.

Vancian magic has a number of literary analogs. It wasn't invented for D&D. It does happen to be fairly well known as a part of D&D, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.

I do agree that non-vancian systems could be included as well(I'm a very lonely fan of truenaming), but I don't feel this requires removal of the already popular and well known vancian casting.

Faster combats is a good thing...being inclusive is also a good thing. D&D 3.5 isn't my favorite game, but I like it well enough, and everyone plays it. That's important.

-Powers for everyone. I don't care if you call them powers or something else to suit your fancy. If Clerics use Prayers, while Fighters use Feats, while Mages use spells, and Psions use Manifestations, that's fine. But everyone gets cool things to do, both in and out of combat.

I dunno, really. Some people really do just want to mash the attack button every round. It's not my style, but it seems to be a notable one, and I'd like to see it remain viable.

[DeltaEmil]

I knew the storms where brewing for the most epic clash of rpg nerds ever.

I mean, look. There are the AD&D fans. And they are hardcore. Like, Old Testament hardcore. I mean, their game hates them, AND THEY LOVE IT! You can't go more hardcore than that.

Then there are the 3E fans. They are the Warhammer Orcs. They are the ****ing Green Tide! There's so many of them they'll seem like an endless ocean of hate. And their hate is still hot. And there are so many different groups among them that all have one thing in common: they hate each other more than they hate the others.

You have the "fighters should be fighting with lollypops" crowd. You have the "fighters should be farting thunder and lightning and killing multidimensional creatures by shooting their multidimensional-piercing-so-powerful-like-magic-yet-not-magic bullet sperm at them". Then you have the "no dices should be rolled at all" group. The "dices should be rolled for all" sect. The "Pathfinder rules" caste, the "3E is the one true way" caste, the "Tomes uber alles" caste, and god knows how many more splinter groups. Animosity tests will be failed! Chaos overwhelming!

Then you have the 4E crowd, which still keep their last shreds of self-dignity by deluding themselves that their game is good. And they will fight to the bitter end for their right to keep deluding themselves.

And you have the OD&D crowd. They are like ****ing Elder Gods. They were there before the beginnings of time. No one knows what they're saying, but they keep saying it, and damn if anyone is going to stop them from doing so.

And add to that the few, the bold, the unbreakable, the fans of other rpgs, completely unrelated to D&D, who will make partisan and pirate raids into the fray. WoD, nWoD, GURPS, Rolemaster, Warhammer... You ****ing name it.

And add to all THAT that is going to last for at least a year. AND THEN, you will have EACH of these groups split further, into those who support the 5E, and those who oppose 5E.

Yes, it will be a bloodbath of epic proportions. The Apocalypse, Ragnarok, the Final Confrontation is ahead of us.

This is hilarious. What's the source?

[Seerow]

It's not a myth. The designers explicitly said they designed it to be like a video game. I sort of have to take their word on that.

I was under the impression it's closer to the developers designed D&D to incorporate elements of video games, not to be like a video game. There's a very huge gulf there.

And even if we take the leap to "it plays like a video game" that STILL doesn't make it anything like WoW. About the only similarity the games have is both have Tank/DPS/Heals. Even then the way that is implemented is different between games. I find that most people who compare 4e to WoW have either never played 4e or never played WoW.

I dunno, really. Some people really do just want to mash the attack button every round. It's not my style, but it seems to be a notable one, and I'd like to see it remain viable.

Problem is, in a game where other people do have options, mash the attack button can't be a viable style. It will either be way too strong and thus be the primary go to option for everyone, which then makes all of the interesting things other classes got seem like a waste....or it will have similar output to other people but far fewer options, making it objectively weaker.

If someone wants to play "I attack it" they can intentionally gimp themselves by not using powers, or choosing mostly passive powers/buffs, or by playing a lower level character or NPC style class, without the need for a class trying to pretend playing that way isn't gimping themselves.

[Coidzor]

My dream would be for 5E to bring back the DM.

Right on the first page have a disclaimer--''This game is not Fair and Balanced. We could not make such a game even if we had 100 years. And we don't have that much time. This is a simple action adventure game created so that you can have fun.''

And then--''The DM is the absolute ruler of the game, even above the published rules. All players agree to go by what the DM says.''

Poppycock. The DM should work with his group, not be some kind of petty king ruling from on high and power-tripping.

[DrDeth]

No matter how good it may be, it’s too soon. I can’t keep an open mind when the money grab is so obvious.

[Arcane_Secrets]

...really? It's only been three years since 4e, and you're releasing a new edition?

Eh.

It should be noted that I like 4e, so this may be coloring my reactions.

I don't like 4e at all and basically bailed out for Pathfinder, so I'm not really sure what to think about 5e. If it builds on 4e I probably won't have much to do with it either.

[Psyren]

Poppycock. The DM should work with his group, not be some kind of petty king ruling from on high and power-tripping.

I think his next two sentences covered that bit.

[charcoalninja]

I hope it's more open for 3rd party publishing than 4e. I've been working away on a project in my spare time for about a year now and it won't be release ready for another one or two, and it would be nice to be able to use the current D&D edition to make a campaign setting for my IP.

Worst case scenario I'll stick with Pathfinder, because I love it and doy free use of rules. But I'm excited for 5e.

[Coidzor]

I think his next two sentences covered that bit.

Not in my eyes and not nearly enough to counteract the harm in even appearing to condone that kind of bad mentality at all on an official level.

[BlckDv]

The mix of my life getting more busy, the shortening of development cycles, and the shift to a rules system as opposed to a collection of a la carte ideas has definitely impacted me over the years. Causing me to feel that I get less out of each new edition. I just look at the campaigns I have run, in edition order but not chronological order (only counting those which lasted 10 levels or more):

Chainmail-Red Box D&D

I did not run any Campaign which lasted more than 3-4 levels in these early versions of the game, often they lasted just one adventure.

AD&D and AD&D 2nd Edition (of note, my existing campaigns all simply transitioned smoothly from 1st to 2nd edition):

1 Dragonlance Campaign
1 Spelljammer Campaign (actually a continuation of the Dragonlance campaign)
2 Birthright Campaigns
2 Planescape Campaigns
1 Greyhawk Campaign
1 [That PC Dragons Boxed set] Campaign.
3 Custom World Campaigns

3e/3.5

1 Homebrewed Planescape Update Camapign (This one was an attempt to continue our 2nd Ed Planescape game, it was not nearly as smooth as 1st Ed to 2nd Ed conversions)
1 Custom World Campaign (This campaign bridged 3e/3.5, the conversion was not as painful as 2nd ed to 3e, but far more painful than AD&D to 2nd Ed, we decided we did not like it and went back to plain 3e with table conventions to prevent the worst rules abuse.)
1 Greyhawk/Default Campaign

4e

1 Points of Light Campaign (No attempt to port over 3e games made, this game is ongoing)

4eE

(Not used)

I would have liked to do more in 4e before being asked if I want to buy a new system or not. I don't feel at this time that I can honestly judge 4e as a system, I would want to tell at least two or three stories with different feels before making that call. For this reason I am not excited about 5e, even though I don't oppose it, and I have always been willing to give new editions a shot.

[killem2]

Mana Pools for casters.

[Aotrs Commander]

Eh, I think WotC have mostly lost me at this point. I didn't like 4E much, though I cribbed a few good ideas out of it... Pathfinder, again, while I nicked some of the more elegant ideas...

I've so much effort into my 3.x (well, really 3.Aotrs) rules modifications and rebalances and lists and classes and such that I just don't think I can be bothered to do it again. (Heck, the other major RPG system I use is Rolemaster, which is a hideous mutant hybrid of three editions of Rolemaster and two of SpaceMaster the like of which Man Was Not Meant To Know.) I may well pick 5E eventually, and see if it has any nice ideas I can nick, but in the end, it will have to be beyond spectactular (and in a simulatationist sort of way to boot) to get me to care much. And it's not like I've got a full three entire adventure paths (Shackled City, Rise of the RuneLords, one I can't remember...) to run for my 3.x, so I'm not likely to be even looking in anger until, what about 2015-2016...!

[navar100]

PCs should not be punished for the audacity of using their class abilities. If you just must, must need spellcasters suffer penalties, near-death experiences, insanities, or other such drawback because they cast a spell, the whole point of playing a spellcaster, then admit to yourself already you hate PCs doing nifty stuff and play something else. I hear Call of Cthulu thrives on punishing player characters who dare use magic.

[Seerow]

PCs should not be punished for the audacity of using their class abilities. If you just must, must need spellcasters suffer penalties, near-death experiences, insanities, or other such drawback because they cast a spell, the whole point of playing a spellcaster, then admit to yourself already you hate PCs doing nifty stuff and play something else. I hear Call of Cthulu thrives on punishing player characters who dare use magic.

Has D&D even looked remotely like they were thinking of doing this since 3.0 came out?

[Eldan]

The monster on the other hand? He doesn't care if he got a feat at third level. He doesn't need 20 powers. He's only going to exist in the game for an average of 4 rounds anyway. Give him 2-3 powers, maybe with a recharge timer, and HP/Hit bonus/Defenses that are level appropriate, and he's good to go.
I don't care if the monster draws from PC powers, or if some monsters have unique powers that can be picked up by PCs somehow or another. What I do care about is that NPC complexity be kept down enough that they can be run as easily as in 4e. If that means that a NPC orc has fewer powers, and statistics that aren't 100% accurate when compared to a PC Orc Fighter, I'm really not too bothered, because it's almost a certainty that the PCs won't ever notice the difference.

See, I think the complete opposite. A monster's statblock should show it's place in the world. A genie should be able to grant wishes. A monster needs to be able to survive its native habitat and the common dangers therein. A daemon summoned to impart forbidden knowledge needs knowledge skills. I want the stats to show that a certain dwarf is a superb crafter and a certain elf a superb huntsman. A predator should be able to reliably bring down its prey. The stats should show all that.

Edit: ^Eff no. Why is everyone abusing the poor word "mana" so much? And I dislike mana bar casters it feels like such a boring, flavourless mechanic. It's just dull, and I've seen it a million times. Give me binding, or incarnum, or vancian. A mechanic you can build a world, or at least an adventure around.

[EccentricCircle]

PCs should not be punished for the audacity of using their class abilities. If you just must, must need spellcasters suffer penalties, near-death experiences, insanities, or other such drawback because they cast a spell, the whole point of playing a spellcaster, then admit to yourself already you hate PCs doing nifty stuff and play something else. I hear Call of Cthulu thrives on punishing player characters who dare use magic.

I think the issue here is that it should be an option. but not compulsiary. Most DM's have an idea of how magic works in their world. you need there to be rules so that someone who wants magic to be dangerous can do so. while someone who doesn't can have lots of wizards without having to houserule the hit point loss or whatever.

I think that this is how they need to go on a larger scale. each D&D group is telling their own story and will have different needs, and D&D needs to support that rather than trying to make everything standardised. I've lagely stuck with 3.5 because its variety allows me to reprosent my world much better than 4e does.

I don't want distinct worlds like Eberron and the forgotten realms to be changed to fit into whatever the new standard format is, any more than I'd want someone to go and rewrite the Lord of the Rings to make sure that all the characters have the right number of magic items and encounter powers.
flexibility has to be the key. Otherwise converting my game to a new system would do more harm than good.

[gkathellar]

I think his next two sentences covered that bit.

His next two sentences suggest that balance should be entirely dependent on fiat, and that character ability should actually be dependent on moment-to-moment DM generosity. That's not a road to go down.

[Seerow]

See, I think the complete opposite. A monster's statblock should show it's place in the world. A genie should be able to grant wishes. A monster needs to be able to survive its native habitat and the common dangers therein. A daemon summoned to impart forbidden knowledge needs knowledge skills. I want the stats to show that a certain dwarf is a superb crafter and a certain elf a superb huntsman. A predator should be able to reliably bring down its prey. The stats should show all that.

So you want one dwarf to be a superb craftsman...so you put that in the statblock. It doesn't mean you also need to know what he did with all the other skill points. The whole point is that NPCs should have stats relevant to what you want them to do. It doesn't matter what their other stuff is, or if they even have other stuff, because the PCs will never know or care. Pretending otherwise puts a ton of work on the DM for no good reason.

I mean a predator bringing down its prey doesn't require showing a whole lot more than the basic combat bloc unless their prey is like dragons or something. If they hunt deer, and have a decent move speed and at least one solid attack, I'm not going to question their ability to survive.

As for the demon needing knowledge skills... why does it need to be in the stat block? If a demon is being summoned for the express purpose of granting knowledge, I would assume the summoning ritual would only target a demon who knew what you were after, or it's a waste of time. It's not like the DM's going to say "Okay the Demon has a +18 knowledge check let's roll... whoops sorry, he doesn't know anything about that Fiendish uprising you summoned him to question him about."





Also, what you want, fully statted up NPCs is in fact something that is bad for the game as a whole. This isn't to say you're having WRONGBADFUN but it is important to note that you considering that fun is not a majority opinion. The vast majority of people I know who don't want to get into DMing is because of the pain in the ass that is setting up encounters and statting up hundreds of NPCs. So then only the people who actually do find that fun become DMs, which is restrictive to the growth of the hobby. Simplifying the DMs job so anybody can do it well is necessary to facilitate the growth of tabletop games. When the game demands a significantly higher level of attention, time, and system mastery from a single player role, that role becomes extremely rare as everyone else shies away from it. 4e did a very good job in trying to make DMing more accessible for more players, and I would hate to see 5e abandon that.

[Tyndmyr]

Has D&D even looked remotely like they were thinking of doing this since 3.0 came out?

With a few unfortunate exceptions(Risen Martyr, that Exalted feat that provides a bonus to poisons), not really. That said, the exceptions were all terrible.

So, it's a pretty reasonable concern.

[bloodtide]

I know exactly what D&D needs: Mystery.

Starting with 3E and going over the top in 4E, the game has lost all of it's mystery. The players are too focused on the game part of everything, and not the role playing. Players don't care about the fluff ''oh that scary tentacled monster, sure, whatever...what's it's ac?''. Even more so, all character abilities are straightforward. If a character casts a spell, or uses an ability a set, exact thing happens.

1.Get rid of Knowledge checks. Or at least come up with a system to make them less of an impact. I've seen too many games where the players just ''read the MM page'' by making a high knowledge check, and then win the fight in two rounds by exploiting the monsters weakness and what they know about it. This type of thing must stop. The idea that a simple roll gives you knowledge of every single monster in the multiverse is dumb.

A great twist would be to make knowledge checks something like 50% unreliable. After all, not every sage is a know it all, and sometimes whole nations will believe the wrong thing.

2.Add simple variants to monsters. A lot like mini templates or monster class abilities. That way, no monster is 'by the book'. So no one can know exactly what a single monster can or can't do. Make things like spell like abilities more like ''can cast one 2nd level arcane spell 3/D'' not just ''casts knock 3/d''. Maybe even a system where monsters can 'cash in' abilites and switch them for others.

3.Make magic dangerous. So that when anyone uses any magic, anything can happen. Not so much that they die, just might be harmed or effected. Make it dangerous to use magic vs magic, have wild things happen, both good and bad. Give magic the awe and wonder it should have. Get rid of spellcraft and such, make magic so unique that no one can really understand it...all you can do is just use your experience and go by what you see. But get rid of the ''I have ranks in spellcrat so I know every single spell and magic effect in the multiverse'' crap.

4.Add more mystery to events. When ever a character tries something, always have a random chance that something might happen, good or bad. So a character can't just 'I swing my sword'', as something else might happen. You could build up a network of feats, classes and spells around this...with the risk of making events more extreme.

5.Make the DM ruler, not the rule books. So page one of each rule book says something like ''the rules here are second to what your DM says''.

[Eldan]

Perhaps I didn't quite explain what I mean.

They should not only have these things in one situation. I want them to perform consistently, on the basis of the same rules the PCs have. If an Arcanaloth grants arcane knowledge when summoned, he should have that same knowledge when he thinks about some other question. And I want a metric of how much he knows, in the stat block. The craftsman dwarf should have a full set of skills. It might come up in the game, and in that case, I want to have a basis to estimate if that dwarf also has an understanding of geology or not, and how much he knows about history. And I want to know how good he is at being a master craftsman. Good enough to forge good swords? Good enough to smelter adamantium? Good enough to forge Mjölnir? A number is a nice, concise way of showing this, when it can be compared to a table in the books. Skill +15: can reliably do X, Y and Z when in a calm situation.