D&D Next/5e Playtest Summary & Campaign Journal

[kyoryu]

What is it with this assumption that the baseline system should always assume a sufficiently disruptive situation such that it justifies the absurd probabilities given by the rules?

Well, the system has to be based around some set of baseline conditions. Given that the baseline pretty much is that you're doing this stuff while adventuring, it makes a certain amount of sense to develop the system around that scenario.

If I can climb a tree effortlessly 95% of the time under ideal conditions, then when I am minorly inconvenienced I might climb it 85% of the time, but I shouldn't drop to 60% in all cases just because we assume that I MUST be under a weight of terrible circumstances. Circumstances we don't determine are quite so distracting when the clumsy dwarf tries and succeeds 45% of the time, meaning for all my adroitness, he's almost as good as I am.

Well, you'd succeed about two times for his one, so yeah, that's a lot better. A binary result is also not something that I'm fond of, and you'd have a higher average degree of success. Lastly, "failing" the roll might just mean it takes longer.

I think those might be okay percentages at low levels, but at high levels it might need to have a slightly higher spread. I don't know that I'd want it to be near 100%, though.

There is a mechanic in place for this in 5e where for checks which don't rely on luck, when the DC is 5 points lower than your score (e.g. DC 11 compared to a score of 16), you automatically succeed at the task. The problem comes in the fact that if the roll IS required, a score of 16 actually only has a 65% chance of success versus a DC of 11, so between DC 11 and 12, the chance of success changes from 100% to 60% for that character. It's a threshold that just doesn't make sense.

Huh, I'll have to check that out. That's a pretty steep edge function there.

You have a particular play style taste that is fun for you, not a road map for what D&D ought to be for everyone. You could end your campaign at level 10 and had the most stupendous awesome campaign EVAR. D&D would support that. For others of us, we'd like to go beyond that to level 20 or "to infinity and beyond" and enjoy such play. We could either start the campaign right then and there or have started at level 1 and eventually get the power through real world time and effort playing. D&D supports that play style too. Why should your preference deny that allowance?

And you have a particular play style taste that is fun for you, too, not a road map for what D&D ought to be for everyone. Either of us can house-rule the game into being what we want it to be, but you houseruling additional bonuses is no more or less acceptable than me houseruling arbitrary level caps.

Clearly, one of us will be disappointed with 5e as written.

More interesting is that we don't even seem to agree on behavior at low levels. Presumably, even if we disagreed on the behavior at level 20, we'd be significantly closer at level 1. And I don't think we are. And I think a lot of that boils down to the idea that, in my mind, failing is okay. It's the failures that make the game/story fun/interesting. Failures open up the game for interesting scenarios and stories to tell later.

Succeeding all the time (or even in just the areas that you decide your character is good at) is a different kind of fun, just not one I'm particularly interested in at this point in my life. Of course, I also don't think 1st level characters are really the best at anything. Moderately competent, but that's about it. I suspect that you'd disagree with that, as well.

[Jerthanis]

Well, the system has to be based around some set of baseline conditions. Given that the baseline pretty much is that you're doing this stuff while adventuring, it makes a certain amount of sense to develop the system around that scenario.

But what is "Adventuring?" that makes routine tasks so gosh darned difficult?

And is adventuring always the same sort of scenario? Because sometimes adventuring is cooly examining a crime scene for signs of who the perpetrator is. Sometimes it's exploring an abandoned castle looking for a secret door to a rumored treasure vault behind a puzzle lock. Sometimes it's planning the best way through the mountain pass without attracting the native Jub Jub Birds' attention. Sometimes it's examining a script of ancient writing on a quiet tomb and trying to puzzle out its meaning. Sometimes it is engineering a pulley system to excavate a particularly heavy piece of treasure from a deep pit.

Adventuring isn't always "a high stress environment while wearing heavy gear and evading attacks from dangerous monsters", so to make all possible checks assume that you are always making them under those conditions completely ignores all kinds of situations that could be possible while "Adventuring" and if it ONLY models high-octane stunts then it will be a failure as a model of a reality in which things can happen other than those insane situations.

And how is it the clumsy dwarf isn't as distracted by these distracting conditions as the elf is, since he's not nearly so penalized from his ideal situation as the elf is? I still haven't seen an answer to that. Also, everything I've seen about 5e so far indicates that the spread WON'T increase with levels significantly. Perhaps 2 or 3 points more from attribute bonuses, magic items, feats, or additional themes, but right now we have no reason to expect a level 20 clumsy dwarf won't keep essentially the same spread with the adroit elf.

[kyoryu]

But what is "Adventuring?" that makes routine tasks so gosh darned difficult?

D&D is built around the idea of it being a group of like-minded heroes going through nasty places and possibly finding traps and/or evil thingies that want to eat their faces off.

IOW, a typical day in Miami (couldn't resist).

Unsure footing, possible imminent violence, uncomfortable conditions, having to carry expedition gear, these things would be the kind of "baseline" expected.

The other scenarios are certainly possible, but aren't the "meat" of what the game attempts to simulate.

(this doesn't mean, of course, that your games have to focus on those aspects. Just that historically, that's been the primary focus of D&D).

It's at least as good of a baseline, and probably more useful, than baseline being "in a calm, serene, ideal environment with perfect tools and no distractions".

[Jerthanis]

D&D is built around the idea of it being a group of like-minded heroes going through nasty places and possibly finding traps and/or evil thingies that want to eat their faces off.

IOW, a typical day in Miami (couldn't resist).

Unsure footing, possible imminent violence, uncomfortable conditions, having to carry expedition gear, these things would be the kind of "baseline" expected.

The other scenarios are certainly possible, but aren't the "meat" of what the game attempts to simulate.

(this doesn't mean, of course, that your games have to focus on those aspects. Just that historically, that's been the primary focus of D&D).

It's at least as good of a baseline, and probably more useful, than baseline being "in a calm, serene, ideal environment with perfect tools and no distractions".

The system you describe is unable to function in a logical way outside of a narrow playstyle and so I desperately hope that they don't go that way with their rules design because not only does it only simulate that one style of D&D, but I think it does so quite inaccurately and poorly in its current iteration due to the way ability checks work. The examples of absurd results arising out of the current framework are prolific.

Speaking of which, I still haven't heard why Clumsy Dwarf doesn't get as distracted when climbing the tree as the Adroit Elf does under the same assumedly catastrophic conditions that render Adroit Elf with a 60% chance to do something which he should find routine under ideal conditions. Clumsy Dwarf wouldn't have much better than a 45% chance to climb the tree under ideal conditions, so why are the same terrible circumstances that render a 30%+ loss in capacity on the part of the elf worthy of almost no penalty at all to the dwarf?

My point is, if you're going to have a baseline to judge a test of skills, it should be at some point between extremes of what the game can support. Having the baseline represent the most action-movie high-energy stunt baseline means that D&D can only support that baseline. If the baseline is that the D&D characters are CSI doctors calmly doing autopsies in well lit morgues with all their laser-sharpened tools available, it can't support more dicey situations. If instead we place the baseline somewhere in the middle and offer situational modifiers, we can model both and thus support both.

[theNater]

Speaking of which, I still haven't heard why Clumsy Dwarf doesn't get as distracted when climbing the tree as the Adroit Elf does under the same assumedly catastrophic conditions that render Adroit Elf with a 60% chance to do something which he should find routine under ideal conditions. Clumsy Dwarf wouldn't have much better than a 45% chance to climb the tree under ideal conditions, so why are the same terrible circumstances that render a 30%+ loss in capacity on the part of the elf worthy of almost no penalty at all to the dwarf?

The example of Clumsy Dwarf having a 40% chance to climb a tree and Adroit Elf having a 60% or 70% chance was assuming they were both under the same conditions(the ones you are calling catastrophic). So if conditions are sufficiently ideal that Adroit Elf is autosucceeding, Clumsy Dwarf should likely be well above 45%.

And, frankly, climbing a tree under ideal conditions isn't really very hard. That should be pretty much an autosuccess for everybody, even Clumsy Dwarf.

[navar100]

And you have a particular play style taste that is fun for you, too, not a road map for what D&D ought to be for everyone. Either of us can house-rule the game into being what we want it to be, but you houseruling additional bonuses is no more or less acceptable than me houseruling arbitrary level caps.

Clearly, one of us will be disappointed with 5e as written.

More interesting is that we don't even seem to agree on behavior at low levels. Presumably, even if we disagreed on the behavior at level 20, we'd be significantly closer at level 1. And I don't think we are. And I think a lot of that boils down to the idea that, in my mind, failing is okay. It's the failures that make the game/story fun/interesting. Failures open up the game for interesting scenarios and stories to tell later.

Succeeding all the time (or even in just the areas that you decide your character is good at) is a different kind of fun, just not one I'm particularly interested in at this point in my life. Of course, I also don't think 1st level characters are really the best at anything. Moderately competent, but that's about it. I suspect that you'd disagree with that, as well.

My preference does not prevent you from stopping at level 10 having a grand old time. Your preference would never let me get to level 20 denying me having a grand old time because level 20 wouldn't exist. Since my preference leads to more people having fun and wanting the game, that's the better option.

[kyoryu]

My preference does not prevent you from stopping at level 10 having a grand old time. Your preference would never let me get to level 20 denying me having a grand old time because level 20 wouldn't exist. Since my preference leads to more people having fun and wanting the game, that's the better option.

I didn't say there wouldn't be a level 20. I just suggested it be less powerful than what you might prefer... which you could alter by increasing bonuses.

You're making up strawmen now.

[navar100]

I didn't say there wouldn't be a level 20. I just suggested it be less powerful than what you might prefer... which you could alter by increasing bonuses.

You're making up strawmen now.

It's metaphorical but understandable on misinterpretation. You are forbidding high power play to those who like it so that everyone must play low power or you will be offended people play that way where as my preference for eventually reaching high power play does not prevent those who only like the low power play from doing so.

[Person_Man]

I agree with this. I said earlier that using ability checks is a very intuitive and flexible system (and in principle, I still stand by that), but the math can screw it. This formula indeed screws it. The advantage/disadvantage rule and its exact implementation suddenly becomes very important, it can make or break the entire game.

And now, spoilered for length, some calculations about how ability checks could be, errr, calculated.

Spoiler

Show

I was thinking, why should the modifier be [(ability score - 10) / 2] in the first place ? Why divide by 2? Why not use [ability score - 10]? Or simply use the unmodified ability score. Either way, all the static DCs need to be recalculated.


Opposed Ability Checks

Let's take for example Mike Tyson arm-wrestling That Guy Next Door - a strength check between someone with Str 20 and someone with Str 10.

With the normal ability modifier, the opposed roll is 1d20+5 Vs 1d20+0, and we have:

• Mike Tyson wins 70% of the time
• That Guy wins 26.25% of the time (or 45.6% with advantage)
• Draw 3.75% of the time.

Using the ability score instead, the opposed roll is 1d20+20 Vs 1d20+10, and we have:

• Mike Tyson wins 86.25% of the time
• That Guy wins 11.25% of the time (or 21.23% with advantage)
• Draw 2.5% of the time

Isn't the second method both a lot more believable (from a simulation perspective) and a lot more rewarding high stats (from a game mechanics perspective)?

Also, if we use Advantage, That Guy can still improve his chances, but let's not get crazy here. This is Mike Tyson, mmkay? On the other hand, with more comparable ability scores, Advantage/Disadvantage would be a much bigger deal.


Ability checks Vs DC

As for the static DCs, there's no need at all to re-introduce that appalling subtraction to the game. I'm not saying this ironically. It's indeed more rewarding to win when you roll high instead of low, and subtraction is indeed distracting. It was a good call to get rid of it, but the method was clunky. It was clunky because for some weird reason they kept the same DCs as a base to calculate everything, and jumped through hoops to make that happen.

But all they had to do was recalculate the DCs. If the roll is 1d20+ability score (not modifier), then an average DC, one you'll win (more or less) half the time if you're an average person and roll 1d20+10, should simply be 20 instead of 10. That way, you have:

DC 15, Easy Challenge (formerly 5):

• Gimped person rolls 1d20+5, succeeds 55% of the time
• Average person rolls 1d20+10, succeeds 80% of the time
• Gifted person rolls 1d20+15, succeeds 100% of the time
• Exceptional person rolls 1d20+20, succeeds 100% of the time

DC 20, Average challenge (formerly 10):

• Gimped person rolls 1d20+5, succeeds 30% of the time
• Average person rolls 1d20+10, succeeds 55% of the time
• Gifted person rolls 1d20+15, succeeds 80% of the time
• Exceptional person rolls 1d20+20, succeeds 100% of the time

DC 25, Difficult challenge (formerly 15):

• Gimped person rolls 1d20+5, succeeds 5% of the time
• Average person rolls 1d20+10, succeeds 30% of the time
• Gifted person rolls 1d20+15, succeeds 55% of the time
• Exceptional person rolls 1d20+20, succeeds 80% of the time

DC 30, Nigh impossible challenge (formerly 20):

• Gimped person rolls 1d20+5, succeeds 0% of the time
• Average person rolls 1d20+10, succeeds 5% of the time
• Gifted person rolls 1d20+15, succeeds 30% of the time
• Exceptional person rolls 1d20+20, succeeds 55% of the time

There. The DCs allow for a wide variation of success depending on your ability score. Chance is still a factor, but now it matters how strong or how wise you are. Easiest possible way to calculate everything, for the player and for the DM.

And the re-rolling of advantage/disadvantage still affects the result, but without making the ability scores themselves completely irrelevant. Average benefits the most from Advantage (and suffers the most from Disadvantage), while those with too high or too low scores are less impressed. This also sounds intuitive to me. Advantage/Disadvantage sounds like something that should easily tip the scales, when the scales are more or less balanced. Not so easily when the goal is really a piece of cake, or next to impossible.


...OK, this can't be right. I must be missing something. There can't be such an easy way to make ability checks (opposed, or Vs a static DC) work. There must be unforeseen consequences. Something else breaks horribly, and I didn't think of it. Please tell me what I'm missing, or what mistakes I made. (Otherwise, send this to WotC ASAP. )

You should go post your math over on the WotC playtest forum. It's clear that they're sticking with the old system due to nostalgia value, even though it doesn't make any sense. I think that a flat 18 Strengths = +18 bonus would make much more intuitive and mathematical sense.

I would also add that they seriously need to find something meaningful for Intelligence, Charisma, and (to a lesser degree) Charisma. Ability scores should be balanced against other ability scores, and not through a trade-off of having weaker base classes or races. (I'm looking at you, 3.5 Half-Orc).

[Jerthanis]

The example of Clumsy Dwarf having a 40% chance to climb a tree and Adroit Elf having a 60% or 70% chance was assuming they were both under the same conditions(the ones you are calling catastrophic). So if conditions are sufficiently ideal that Adroit Elf is autosucceeding, Clumsy Dwarf should likely be well above 45%.

And, frankly, climbing a tree under ideal conditions isn't really very hard. That should be pretty much an autosuccess for everybody, even Clumsy Dwarf.

We're talking about a difference between the most dextrous person possible and the least dextrous person possible. I'm assuming climbing this tree is a non-trivial task (DC 11-13) and the least dextrous person possible will beat the most dextrous person possible to the top a non-trivial percentage of the time under the same conditions. So I'm just wondering what these conditions are that are hugely penalizing to the most dextrous person possible when they aren't really hurting the least dextrous person possible very much at all.

[HeadlessMermaid]

You should go post your math over on the WotC playtest forum. It's clear that they're sticking with the old system due to nostalgia value, even though it doesn't make any sense. I think that a flat 18 Strengths = +18 bonus would make much more intuitive and mathematical sense.

I get too intimidated by authority to post anything at WotC.
Jokes aside, if you really see it that way, how about proposing it yourself. You have way better credentials.

[Kerrin]

By all the ... this makes too much sense! Kudos for creating something elegant and solves the mechanic well.

I've wondered why there was the -10 and /2 other than keeping things within the traditional ranges. I've never liked the step function that happens at the even ability scores.

Thanks for the enlightenment.

I agree with this. I said earlier that using ability checks is a very intuitive and flexible system (and in principle, I still stand by that), but the math can screw it. This formula indeed screws it. The advantage/disadvantage rule and its exact implementation suddenly becomes very important, it can make or break the entire game.

And now, spoilered for length, some calculations about how ability checks could be, errr, calculated.

Spoiler

Show

I was thinking, why should the modifier be [(ability score - 10) / 2] in the first place ? Why divide by 2? Why not use [ability score - 10]? Or simply use the unmodified ability score. Either way, all the static DCs need to be recalculated.


Opposed Ability Checks

Let's take for example Mike Tyson arm-wrestling That Guy Next Door - a strength check between someone with Str 20 and someone with Str 10.

With the normal ability modifier, the opposed roll is 1d20+5 Vs 1d20+0, and we have:

• Mike Tyson wins 70% of the time
• That Guy wins 26.25% of the time (or 45.6% with advantage)
• Draw 3.75% of the time.

Using the ability score instead, the opposed roll is 1d20+20 Vs 1d20+10, and we have:

• Mike Tyson wins 86.25% of the time
• That Guy wins 11.25% of the time (or 21.23% with advantage)
• Draw 2.5% of the time

Isn't the second method both a lot more believable (from a simulation perspective) and a lot more rewarding high stats (from a game mechanics perspective)?

Also, if we use Advantage, That Guy can still improve his chances, but let's not get crazy here. This is Mike Tyson, mmkay? On the other hand, with more comparable ability scores, Advantage/Disadvantage would be a much bigger deal.


Ability checks Vs DC

As for the static DCs, there's no need at all to re-introduce that appalling subtraction to the game. I'm not saying this ironically. It's indeed more rewarding to win when you roll high instead of low, and subtraction is indeed distracting. It was a good call to get rid of it, but the method was clunky. It was clunky because for some weird reason they kept the same DCs as a base to calculate everything, and jumped through hoops to make that happen.

But all they had to do was recalculate the DCs. If the roll is 1d20+ability score (not modifier), then an average DC, one you'll win (more or less) half the time if you're an average person and roll 1d20+10, should simply be 20 instead of 10. That way, you have:

DC 15, Easy Challenge (formerly 5):

• Gimped person rolls 1d20+5, succeeds 55% of the time
• Average person rolls 1d20+10, succeeds 80% of the time
• Gifted person rolls 1d20+15, succeeds 100% of the time
• Exceptional person rolls 1d20+20, succeeds 100% of the time

DC 20, Average challenge (formerly 10):

• Gimped person rolls 1d20+5, succeeds 30% of the time
• Average person rolls 1d20+10, succeeds 55% of the time
• Gifted person rolls 1d20+15, succeeds 80% of the time
• Exceptional person rolls 1d20+20, succeeds 100% of the time

DC 25, Difficult challenge (formerly 15):

• Gimped person rolls 1d20+5, succeeds 5% of the time
• Average person rolls 1d20+10, succeeds 30% of the time
• Gifted person rolls 1d20+15, succeeds 55% of the time
• Exceptional person rolls 1d20+20, succeeds 80% of the time

DC 30, Nigh impossible challenge (formerly 20):

• Gimped person rolls 1d20+5, succeeds 0% of the time
• Average person rolls 1d20+10, succeeds 5% of the time
• Gifted person rolls 1d20+15, succeeds 30% of the time
• Exceptional person rolls 1d20+20, succeeds 55% of the time

There. The DCs allow for a wide variation of success depending on your ability score. Chance is still a factor, but now it matters how strong or how wise you are. Easiest possible way to calculate everything, for the player and for the DM.

And the re-rolling of advantage/disadvantage still affects the result, but without making the ability scores themselves completely irrelevant. Average benefits the most from Advantage (and suffers the most from Disadvantage), while those with too high or too low scores are less impressed. This also sounds intuitive to me. Advantage/Disadvantage sounds like something that should easily tip the scales, when the scales are more or less balanced. Not so easily when the goal is really a piece of cake, or next to impossible.


...OK, this can't be right. I must be missing something. There can't be such an easy way to make ability checks (opposed, or Vs a static DC) work. There must be unforeseen consequences. Something else breaks horribly, and I didn't think of it. Please tell me what I'm missing, or what mistakes I made. (Otherwise, send this to WotC ASAP. )

[theNater]

We're talking about a difference between the most dextrous person possible and the least dextrous person possible. I'm assuming climbing this tree is a non-trivial task (DC 11-13) and the least dextrous person possible will beat the most dextrous person possible to the top a non-trivial percentage of the time under the same conditions. So I'm just wondering what these conditions are that are hugely penalizing to the most dextrous person possible when they aren't really hurting the least dextrous person possible very much at all.

The thing you seem to be missing is that, in the scenarios described by kyoryu, the difference between the most dextrous person and the least dextrous person isn't a very big difference. If climbing the tree is routine for Adroit Elf, then it's pretty much routine for Clumsy Dwarf. If it is rough for Adroit Elf, then it's slightly rougher for Clumsy Dwarf.

Now, some people think that the difference between most dextrous and least dextrous should be larger than that, and that's fair. But you seem to be arguing against a scenario where the difference is large in one set of circumstances and small in another. This, as far as I can tell, is a situation no one is arguing for.

[kyoryu]

The thing you seem to be missing is that, in the scenarios described by kyoryu, the difference between the most dextrous person and the least dextrous person isn't a very big difference. If climbing the tree is routine for Adroit Elf, then it's pretty much routine for Clumsy Dwarf. If it is rough for Adroit Elf, then it's slightly rougher for Clumsy Dwarf.

Now, some people think that the difference between most dextrous and least dextrous should be larger than that, and that's fair. But you seem to be arguing against a scenario where the difference is large in one set of circumstances and small in another. This, as far as I can tell, is a situation no one is arguing for.

To a certain extent, yeah. But then again, I like more down-to-earth games.

With a DC of 16, a bonus of 6 means you succeed half the time. I'm okay with that for a success chance for climbing a tree while things are trying to get you down.

For the Dwarf, though, he'd only succeed one in 4 times. That's probably not worth the risk, and frankly succeeding half as often is to me a pretty reasonable difference.

Of course, I don't view characters as being an extension of showing how awesome they are. Being "better" means exactly that - you're better, not the best in the world. "Best in the world" is a phrase that keeps coming up, and frighteningly often in relationship to 1st-level characters. I just don't view them that way, never have, but I understand some people do.

[Dienekes]

I agree with this. I said earlier that using ability checks is a very intuitive and flexible system (and in principle, I still stand by that), but the math can screw it. This formula indeed screws it. The advantage/disadvantage rule and its exact implementation suddenly becomes very important, it can make or break the entire game.

And now, spoilered for length, some calculations about how ability checks could be, errr, calculated.

Spoiler

Show

I was thinking, why should the modifier be [(ability score - 10) / 2] in the first place ? Why divide by 2? Why not use [ability score - 10]? Or simply use the unmodified ability score. Either way, all the static DCs need to be recalculated.


Opposed Ability Checks

Let's take for example Mike Tyson arm-wrestling That Guy Next Door - a strength check between someone with Str 20 and someone with Str 10.

With the normal ability modifier, the opposed roll is 1d20+5 Vs 1d20+0, and we have:

• Mike Tyson wins 70% of the time
• That Guy wins 26.25% of the time (or 45.6% with advantage)
• Draw 3.75% of the time.

Using the ability score instead, the opposed roll is 1d20+20 Vs 1d20+10, and we have:

• Mike Tyson wins 86.25% of the time
• That Guy wins 11.25% of the time (or 21.23% with advantage)
• Draw 2.5% of the time

Isn't the second method both a lot more believable (from a simulation perspective) and a lot more rewarding high stats (from a game mechanics perspective)?

Also, if we use Advantage, That Guy can still improve his chances, but let's not get crazy here. This is Mike Tyson, mmkay? On the other hand, with more comparable ability scores, Advantage/Disadvantage would be a much bigger deal.


Ability checks Vs DC

As for the static DCs, there's no need at all to re-introduce that appalling subtraction to the game. I'm not saying this ironically. It's indeed more rewarding to win when you roll high instead of low, and subtraction is indeed distracting. It was a good call to get rid of it, but the method was clunky. It was clunky because for some weird reason they kept the same DCs as a base to calculate everything, and jumped through hoops to make that happen.

But all they had to do was recalculate the DCs. If the roll is 1d20+ability score (not modifier), then an average DC, one you'll win (more or less) half the time if you're an average person and roll 1d20+10, should simply be 20 instead of 10. That way, you have:

DC 15, Easy Challenge (formerly 5):

• Gimped person rolls 1d20+5, succeeds 55% of the time
• Average person rolls 1d20+10, succeeds 80% of the time
• Gifted person rolls 1d20+15, succeeds 100% of the time
• Exceptional person rolls 1d20+20, succeeds 100% of the time

DC 20, Average challenge (formerly 10):

• Gimped person rolls 1d20+5, succeeds 30% of the time
• Average person rolls 1d20+10, succeeds 55% of the time
• Gifted person rolls 1d20+15, succeeds 80% of the time
• Exceptional person rolls 1d20+20, succeeds 100% of the time

DC 25, Difficult challenge (formerly 15):

• Gimped person rolls 1d20+5, succeeds 5% of the time
• Average person rolls 1d20+10, succeeds 30% of the time
• Gifted person rolls 1d20+15, succeeds 55% of the time
• Exceptional person rolls 1d20+20, succeeds 80% of the time

DC 30, Nigh impossible challenge (formerly 20):

• Gimped person rolls 1d20+5, succeeds 0% of the time
• Average person rolls 1d20+10, succeeds 5% of the time
• Gifted person rolls 1d20+15, succeeds 30% of the time
• Exceptional person rolls 1d20+20, succeeds 55% of the time

There. The DCs allow for a wide variation of success depending on your ability score. Chance is still a factor, but now it matters how strong or how wise you are. Easiest possible way to calculate everything, for the player and for the DM.

And the re-rolling of advantage/disadvantage still affects the result, but without making the ability scores themselves completely irrelevant. Average benefits the most from Advantage (and suffers the most from Disadvantage), while those with too high or too low scores are less impressed. This also sounds intuitive to me. Advantage/Disadvantage sounds like something that should easily tip the scales, when the scales are more or less balanced. Not so easily when the goal is really a piece of cake, or next to impossible.


...OK, this can't be right. I must be missing something. There can't be such an easy way to make ability checks (opposed, or Vs a static DC) work. There must be unforeseen consequences. Something else breaks horribly, and I didn't think of it. Please tell me what I'm missing, or what mistakes I made. (Otherwise, send this to WotC ASAP. )

I like this a lot, the only downside I currently see is that training is under represented with the current numbers. A +3 bonus when your max score was only +4 or +5 is fairly noticeable. I'm not sure if that same +3 will matter as much when the base modifiers are in the teens.

[Draz74]

I like this a lot, the only downside I currently see is that training is under represented with the current numbers. A +3 bonus when your max score was only +4 or +5 is fairly noticeable. I'm not sure if that same +3 will matter as much when the base modifiers are in the teens.

Sure, if you're basically multiplying the attribute numbers by 2 (on average, and after the overall shift in DCs), it makes sense to double other modifiers likewise.

[Jerthanis]

Now, some people think that the difference between most dextrous and least dextrous should be larger than that, and that's fair. But you seem to be arguing against a scenario where the difference is large in one set of circumstances and small in another. This, as far as I can tell, is a situation no one is arguing for.

I'm trying to point out how absurd the results of the current system are. Essentially when straight d20 + Ability Score Bonus vs d20 + Ability Score Bonus is the fundamental system to resolve tasks and contests between people, then you have to accept that essentially Adroit Elf is not significantly better at dexy tasks than Clumsy Dwarf is. The Elf isn't agile, he merely pretends to be agile. In actuality he isn't significantly more agile by the numbers. By the same token the Wizard isn't significantly more intelligent than the Ogre because of the results which are returned by the system which determines the outcomes of their checks and contests.

Essentially, when this was brought up, it was mentioned that these checks are always (ALWAYS!!!) performed under sufficiently distracting conditions to justify whatever results they happen to return. I was pointing out that conditions detrimental enough to justify competent people failing do NOT seem to similarly penalize incompetent people trying the same task at the same time. If they DO similarly penalize both, and the incompetent is still pretty likely to succeed then it's as impossible to play a character whose Clumsyness or Adroitness are truly reflected in play. Essentially everyone will be almost entirely similar in their basic capabilities. You might track some tendencies at the extremes, but anything less is essentially a total contest of luck. My wizard's familiar will knock a dragon on its behind something like 20% of the time if it's allowed to roll.

And then, if we restrict who can roll against who based on how far their stats are from each other, you're essentially mandating a "you have to be this tall in order to ride" barrier between a 100% success rate on the favored actor to something like a 60% success rate based on whatever single unit of closeness you judge is the point where they can reasonably contest. There is no middle ground between essentially totally up in the air and "You can't even try". So saying that you can just only allow rolls when there's a reasonable chance of failure / a reasonable expectation of a real contest, you still return unfavorable results from the system.

I'm just expressing all the reasons I don't like the system as it is, and trying to express how more granularity, adding bigger numbers based on the character, and a smoother curve between "totally impossible" "50% chance" and "Automatically successful" would suit my tastes better and be more evocative of a real world situation. Because I actually WOULD very much like a system where you add the full stat to the checks and adjust DCs to match. That sounds like a system worthy of playtesting and seeing where the breaking points are and evaluating if it works or not and if it does work, it COULD be the core of a system I'd play. I wouldn't personally go to bat for it until I see some math on it and see it in play, but at the least I don't see glaring problems with it returning absurd results at a glance. Results which must be continuously justified after the fact.

[Lycar]

Personally I believe the flaw of the skill system is its binary nature. You either succeed on a task or you don't, no shades of grey.

What would really improve the system isn't so much narrowing down the spread but making the quality of success mean something.

What I mean is that the amount you beat the DC by becomes important. So that the dwarf, while beating the DC to get any climbing done at all only climbs a meter or two, the elf, beating the DC by a higher margin, climbs half a dozen meters in the same time instead.

Yes this plays havoc with the movement rules as of 3.P but that is another matter.

Quality of success could also emphasis skill over raw talent. For example, if a character with a high stat and low skill and a character with a lower stat and more skill have the same modifier, the more skilled character could have the edge if the quality of success is capped by your skill ranks.

Say climbing depends on STR (as in 3.P) instead of DEX, then in the example the dwarf fighter and the elf archer could actually end up with the same modifier. But if the dwarf has only, say, 2 ranks in climb and the elf has 6, and we make it so that the amount you beat the DC by is capped by your skill ranks, then the more skilled elf can out-perform the dwarf despite their parity on skill check modifiers on virtue of having more skill.*

In other words, beating a simple skill check can be almost as easy for a less skilled and talented character as long as being more skilled still makes a difference. To get out of harms way from the angry monster may only require climbing 2 meters or so, something both the dwarf and the elf can pull off. But if it comes to scaling a cliff or a wall, while both can potentially do it, the elf will have the edge because he will be up there a lot faster then the dwarf.

The current, binary system does not support this kind of differentiation.

*EDIT: Although since the current system also makes it so that people rarely have skill points left for anything but the most essential skills, maybe make the result cap be the total modifier. Otherwise it would penalize people who can't spare skill points for Climb but are strong too much. Oh and the minimum result should be treated as 1 for climbing 0 feet on a successful roll isn't fun.

[HeadlessMermaid]

I like this a lot, the only downside I currently see is that training is under represented with the current numbers. A +3 bonus when your max score was only +4 or +5 is fairly noticeable. I'm not sure if that same +3 will matter as much when the base modifiers are in the teens.

As Draz74 said, all you'd have to do is adjust the +3 bonus and make it +6 instead. But that's assuming the +3 is "correct". Frankly, I don't know how they came up with that number, if they calculated it with specific results in mind, if they eyeballed it, if they chose it arbitrarily. I don't know if it's a flat bonus, applying for the rest of your career, or if it will scale somehow. Finally, I don't know how easy it will be to boost the stats themselves (by leveling up, boosts from race and/or class, magic items etc).

I'm not saying it's wrong (it seems fine at first glance), I just don't know how it works exactly.

Personally, I love skills. I hated it how 3.5 made non-Int based, 2 skill points/lvl classes "not know how to tie their shoelaces". And I've been houseruling "skill bonuses to match background" rules for a long time.

On the other hand, I obviously love skill monkeys too, I want the Rogue to do the coolest stuff with skills. And if class skills are gone, if all characters get the same amount of bonuses depending on background only... then I absolutely NEED the Rogue to have class abilities that emulate an affinity to skills. Or, more abstractly, "mundane, non-combat ways to deal with things".

It may be flat bonuses, or Advantage under certain circumstances, it may be about the quality of success on a skill check (like Lycar suggested above), it may even be a weird variant of non-combat maneuvers. I don't mind, I can do simple and I can do complicated. Just give me something.

[Jerthanis]

Personally I believe the flaw of the skill system is its binary nature. You either succeed on a task or you don't, no shades of grey.

What would really improve the system isn't so much narrowing down the spread but making the quality of success mean something.

What I mean is that the amount you beat the DC by becomes important. So that the dwarf, while beating the DC to get any climbing done at all only climbs a meter or two, the elf, beating the DC by a higher margin, climbs half a dozen meters in the same time instead.

This is actually kind of an interesting idea and I kind of like it.

What if you took the margin of your success and crafted a result out of it? If you rolled a 17 versus DC 11, you could spend 3 points on climbing 6 feet higher and 3 points on digging handholds for people following you, reducing their DC by 1 or 2 or something. Or you could spend 5 marginal success points past what you needed to unlock something creating a key setting for a lock you picked. Or you could Pick pockets someone for the marginal success in bonus weight of an object purloined or spend some of your points planting an object on them while stealing the first item. I mean, obviously this would complicate things a lot, but it could provide for more detail as to what a skilled person can do with certain skills.

[kyoryu]

This is actually kind of an interesting idea and I kind of like it.

What if you took the margin of your success and crafted a result out of it? If you rolled a 17 versus DC 11, you could spend 3 points on climbing 6 feet higher and 3 points on digging handholds for people following you, reducing their DC by 1 or 2 or something. Or you could spend 5 marginal success points past what you needed to unlock something creating a key setting for a lock you picked. Or you could Pick pockets someone for the marginal success in bonus weight of an object purloined or spend some of your points planting an object on them while stealing the first item. I mean, obviously this would complicate things a lot, but it could provide for more detail as to what a skilled person can do with certain skills.

Interestingly, that's a core mechanic in some systems. For instance, in BW, a hit in combat is modified by the number of success above the target you get, and you can determine how to spend those (increase damage, target a specific location, etc.)

[Dienekes]

As Draz74 said, all you'd have to do is adjust the +3 bonus and make it +6 instead. But that's assuming the +3 is "correct". Frankly, I don't know how they came up with that number, if they calculated it with specific results in mind, if they eyeballed it, if they chose it arbitrarily. I don't know if it's a flat bonus, applying for the rest of your career, or if it will scale somehow. Finally, I don't know how easy it will be to boost the stats themselves (by leveling up, boosts from race and/or class, magic items etc).

I'm not saying it's wrong (it seems fine at first glance), I just don't know how it works exactly.

Personally, I love skills. I hated it how 3.5 made non-Int based, 2 skill points/lvl classes "not know how to tie their shoelaces". And I've been houseruling "skill bonuses to match background" rules for a long time.

On the other hand, I obviously love skill monkeys too, I want the Rogue to do the coolest stuff with skills. And if class skills are gone, if all characters get the same amount of bonuses depending on background only... then I absolutely NEED the Rogue to have class abilities that emulate an affinity to skills. Or, more abstractly, "mundane, non-combat ways to deal with things".

It may be flat bonuses, or Advantage under certain circumstances, it may be about the quality of success on a skill check (like Lycar suggested above), it may even be a weird variant of non-combat maneuvers. I don't mind, I can do simple and I can do complicated. Just give me something.

I don't think this is going to be too much of a problem, since of the Rogue presented it gets double the skills, and skill mastery at level 1, and free advantage on skills at level 2 (admittedly only twice a day).

Honestly the only reason why I don't think we've been getting a lot of how awesome rogues are at skills yet is because 1) the skill choice they've been handed kind of sucks (Commerce? Folk Lore? Animal Handling? when were we expected to test these out?) 2) the module given is essentially a bunch of fights where the skills don't really come into effect, and 3) I don't remember really reading how any of these skills work anyhow.

[Saph]

Playtest Journal, Session 2: Caves of Blandness

The Party

Even after all the combats of last week the party had ended the session on level 1, so to vary things up a bit (and to make up for the smaller party) we advanced everyone to level 3 so as to get to try the higher-level class features.

• Level 3 Elf Wizard: Played by the fighter's player from last week.
• Level 3 Dwarf Fighter: Played by one of the rogues from last week.
• Level 3 Human Cleric: Played by last week's wizard.
• Level 3 Halfing Rogue: Played by last week's "pacifist" cleric.

Day 1: Hobgoblin Slaughter

The party started off with the hobgoblin caverns, and killed their way through them at high speed. The encounters mostly acted as an introduction to the relative capabilities of the classes at level 3, which turned out as follows:

• The level 3 Wizard is notably less impressive than he was at level 1. Sleep is no longer a mass knockout once you're fighting things with 11 hit points, and Burning Hands scales poorly. His level 2 spells are nice, but not as overwhelming. The familiar is pretty fun, though, especially if you use it as an attack kitty (cat-delivered shocking grasp!)
• The level 3 Rogue was slightly better than at level 1, due to the greatly increased sneak attack damage and the ability to remain hidden on a miss, but is still very short of options.
• The level 3 Fighter gets Cleave. Again, the best single-target DPS, but cripplingly short of variety beyond "I hit it again". Notably, the player found axe-and-shield more effective than a two-hander since he was generally killing things on one hit anyway.
• The level 3 Cleric of Pelor is INSANELY good. Maximised heals, high accuracy and damage, good armour, and Channel Radiance, a repeatable AoE nuke that instakills entire rooms full of monsters. A party of Clerics of Pelor is probably the strongest party out there at levels 2-3.

Two PCs nearly died to the hobgoblins, but this was more due to carelessness/bad luck than anything else – if the PCs had done things the slow, boring way they probably could have cleared out the hobgobs without risk.

Day 2: Owlbears, Oozes, and Bugbears

The party proceeded on their methodical way through the caves. First they met some rats, and killed them. Then they met an owlbear, and killed that. Then they got attacked by a Gray Ooze, and killed that too. Then they ran into two more Gray Oozes, and had to run away due to the nuisance factor of the equipment damage. Then they met the first room of bugbears and killed them. Then they reached the second room of bugbears and killed them too.

If this is starting to sound repetitive, that's because it was. By this point my motivation to GM the adventure was starting to run low. Every encounter was turning out exactly the same way: party meets monsters, party fights monsters, party either massacres monsters or runs away and comes back later to do it again. The party were starting to get the same feeling and it was decided that we'd stop exploring the caves and start cherry-picking the more interesting-sounding fights.

Day 3: Shrine of Evil Chaos

The party rested and came back. For the last hour and a half of gameplay we did things differently: I'd read out the names of the rooms in numerical order and the party would decide whether or not to play the encounter.

GM: "Room 51: Boulder-Filled-Passage."
Party: "No."
GM: "Room 52: Hall of Skeletons."
Party: "Yes."

Much annihilation of skeletons ensued, during which it was discovered that Turn Undead makes killing melee undead pretty easy. The party looted the room and moved on.

GM: "Room 53: Guard Room."
Party: "No."
GM: "Room 54: Acolytes' Chamber."
Party: "No."
GM: "Room 55: Evil Chapel."
Party: "That sounds good."

The PCs promptly set off every alarm in the place. This attracted the acolytes and Dark Adepts, whom the PCs massacred without difficulty.

To finish things off, I ran the Temple of Evil Chaos. Again the PCs set off the alarms, and the Priest of Evil Chaos came out to fight. After a few minutes of roleplaying where the Cleric of Pelor and the Priest of Evil Chaos both tried to out-shout each other convincing the other that their god was superior, the party swarmed the priest and slaughtered him easily. They looted the place and left, at which point we ended the session.

Class Power Rankings

Having played at both level 1 and level 3, the party's opinion on the rankings of the relative power levels of the classes was as follows:

• 1. Human Cleric: Does everything. High accuracy, good damage, best healing, good versatility, and area nukes.
• 2. Dwarven Cleric: Best defence. Versatile with decent healing and makes a good front-liner.
• 3. Wizard: Best attack at level 1, though the Cleric edges it out later on. Versatile, but the crappy AC makes them highly vulnerable.
• 4. Fighter: Best damage, but doesn't do anything else. Goes down too easily for a front-liner.
• 5. Rogue: Needs advantage, but doesn't have any consistent way of getting it. Skill abilities are mediocre, basic DPS and defence are mediocre.

Overall Conclusions

We're bored with the playtest, and we're going back to our Dresden Files game instead.

The biggest positive thing that can be said of this new ruleset is that it's fast. We got through many, many encounters each session. Unfortunately, the reason we were getting through combats so fast is that the characters didn't really have many decisions to make. With no AoOs or flanking there was little reason to care about positioning, and with so few attack modes you usually ended up doing the same thing every combat. Every turn came down to "roll d20, see if you hit".

Caves of Chaos is boring, boring, BORING. I'm not an old-school gamer and this has been my first experience running a 1970s module, and quite frankly if all 70s adventures were like this then I'm surprised the game survived to the 80s. The module's a neverending series of encounters against a neverending stream of near-identical monstrous humanoids divided among near-identical rooms. Guard room, guard room, chief's room, common room, guard room, chief's room, guard room, guard room, common room, guard room, guard room, chief's room, guard room, common room, go to start and repeat. Every now and then you get a bigger, more unusual monster to kill, and that's the most variety you get.

Our group did our best to make the session fun with RPing and jokes, and it worked – but ALL the fun came from the RPing and jokes. Maybe I've got a different philosophy as far as adventure design goes, but shouldn't the PCs be given some reason to care about a dungeon crawl? Mindless combat is fine as an occasional side dish, but it shouldn't be the starter, main course, dessert, and everything in between!

No-one in our group could really see any reason to use the 5e rules as they stand. If you want to play 4e-style, 4e does it better. If you want to play 3.5-style, 3.5 does it better. And comparing 5e to our group's current favourite d20 system (which is Pathfinder) we couldn't see how 5e did ANYTHING better.

It's possible our group'll try the later versions of the playtest, but quite frankly we're sufficiently unimpressed with the system as it stands that I don't think it's likely. So 5e gets a resounding "meh" from us, and we're going to drop the system and go back to our other campaigns.

[HeadlessMermaid]

Thanks for the update!

What's "DPS"?

[Fatebreaker]

Playtest Journal

Saph, I've found your journals to be delightfully honest and informative. Thank you for taking the time to do them.

What's "DPS"?

DPS -- Damage Per Second. May also be described as DPR, or Damage Per Round. An acronym referring to how much damage a class or character can reliably do within a given span of time.

[Saph]

Saph, I've found your journals to be delightfully honest and informative. Thank you for taking the time to do them.

Cool, glad you like them!

To be honest I find I have much less time to do them these days - I spend more and more of my time on my own books and associated stuff.

[erikun]

And then, if we restrict who can roll against who based on how far their stats are from each other, you're essentially mandating a "you have to be this tall in order to ride" barrier between a 100% success rate on the favored actor to something like a 60% success rate based on whatever single unit of closeness you judge is the point where they can reasonably contest. There is no middle ground between essentially totally up in the air and "You can't even try". So saying that you can just only allow rolls when there's a reasonable chance of failure / a reasonable expectation of a real contest, you still return unfavorable results from the system.

There is also another unusual result of this system, which I just realized.

Even if you say the 8 DEX character automatically loses to the 18 DEX character in a contest (despite it only being a 25% difference), things break down when you throw in a 13 DEX character. Suddenly, 18 DEX is now competing with 13 DEX and 8 DEX, and the 8 DEX character (who was previously incapable of winning) can come out the victor just by adding a third character.

Trying to limit it to "18 DEX can compete with 13 DEX but still automatically succeeds against 8 DEX" ends up producing absurd situations. If we're talking about a footrace, then you could have 18 DEX lose to 13 DEX, 13 DEX lose to 8 DEX, but 8 DEX losing to 18 DEX. Who, exactly, would be the winner in such a situation?

[Edit]

Class Power Rankings

Having played at both level 1 and level 3, the party's opinion on the rankings of the relative power levels of the classes was as follows:

• 1. Human Cleric: Does everything. High accuracy, good damage, best healing, good versatility, and area nukes.
• 2. Dwarven Cleric: Best defence. Versatile with decent healing and makes a good front-liner.

I'm a big fan of Clerics, but let me just voice my disappointment here. I liked how versatile and varied you could make 3e Clerics, but the power level and options were just a bit absurd. From what little bit I've seen of D&D5, it looks like they are (unfortunately) making Clerics better than most other choices. Again.

Caves of Chaos is boring, boring, BORING. I'm not an old-school gamer and this has been my first experience running a 1970s module, and quite frankly if all 70s adventures were like this then I'm surprised the game survived to the 80s. The module's a neverending series of encounters against a neverending stream of near-identical monstrous humanoids divided among near-identical rooms.

Older modules were more interesting due to having more varied monsters, traps, settings, and in general things to do. I wouldn't put it against the system yet - the intent is no doubt to just see how combat plays out, and so you're just seeing roomfulls of combat.

Although I wonder how accurately they mirror the old-school modules. Perhaps they are more boring than what I remember.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Question to the Playtesters: Has anyone actually liked playing the Fighter?

I've been having a debate with my gamers regarding Mundanes v. Casters in which I echo the issues enunciated on this forum (e.g. Classes shouldn't require DM Fiat to function, Magical Tea Time is prejudiced against Mundanes) while my fellow gamers are more of the "eh, it's not so bad" school.

So... any DMs or Fighter Players want to speak to this question? Is the Fighter fun for anyone?

[Saph]

Oh, the Fighter isn't terrible by any means, and there are plenty of players out there who like it. The thing is, the class is really good at doing damage. If you're going up against any encounter that can't be AoE-nuked, then the Fighter will out-damage all the other classes, easy. So for the beer-and-pretzels types who just want to hit things, the Fighter's the best class.

The problem is that the class doesn't do anything but hit things. It would be fine as one potential fighter build, but not as the only fighter build.

[WitchSlayer]

Oh, the Fighter isn't terrible by any means, and there are plenty of players out there who like it. The thing is, the class is really good at doing damage. If you're going up against any encounter that can't be AoE-nuked, then the Fighter will out-damage all the other classes, easy. So for the beer-and-pretzels types who just want to hit things, the Fighter's the best class.

The problem is that the class doesn't do anything but hit things. It would be fine as one potential fighter build, but not as the only fighter build.

I dunno, I've seen some maths that show, depending on the AC, a level 3 wizard will be doing about as much damage with magic missile as a level 3 fighter. Sometimes more.