D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread

[NichG]

The 10 minute workday speaks to me of a deeper problem in the design of these games, which has been true for as far as I can tell all editions of D&D.

I don't think I've run a single game session with four combat encounters in it in the last three years.

Combat encounters take a lot of time. Once initiative is rolled, I can expect to sink at least an hour into it. If its a non-trivial encounter, three hours. If I'm playing for 8 hours every week, do I want to spend my time doing something interesting, or fighting off that next random encounter? I could split up a single 'day' into multiple game sessions, which I'd do for an intensive dungeon crawl, but something like that is pretty rare.

So what that ends up meaning is that, combat-wise, my players can expect at most two combat encounters in a given day. And thats a reasonable thing that improves the quality of my game. If I ran the four encounters recommended by the rules and designed into the system balance, it might be more challenging but it would correspondingly be far more tedious.

I'll admit though, I like the idea of a resource-limitation subgame for certain situations and feels, and I want the system to support it. Here's a crazy thought that's going to be very unpopular: what if all spells had moderately expensive material components that you couldn't easily eschew within the rules? If every Fireball, every Fly, etc costs 500gp of loot, then they'll be cast lest often. Furthermore, it scales with level as loot value increases.

[Petey7]

And did 3.5 not allow for the same situations. I remember the first time I played, very first day, as a halfling rouge with a strength of 6, I successfully grabbled the parties fighter (I started off as a minor antagonist who was supposed to join the party after the first fight we had) who had a strength of 18, and held him down for 5 rounds. Also, in 3.5 a nat 20 is an automatic hit and a nat 1 one an automtic failure on attack rolls, so technically one can shoot the moon with a crossbow 5% of the time, and a seasoned warrior will fail to hit the side of a barn that they are standing two feet from 5% of the time.

[TheAbstruseOne]

that 11% success rate is without assuming nat 1s are auto-fails, or nat-20s are auto successes. The commoner could win without either of them rolling a nat 20 or a nat 1. So not really sure why you are bringing up nat 20's or nat 1's.

Also, you seem to be completely missing the point of the example. The point is that, the system as written, allows for ridiculous situations, and then tells you to rule 0 it if gives ridiculous results. Saying "use rule 0 when our rules suck" doesn't make the rules suck less. Not to mention, an 11% chance of success is a pretty decent chance. A lot of times you will be doing stuff that aren't obviously auto-fails, where your chances might be that low. Why is it fair to the commoner that he gets to auto-fail, but at a different time, someone with similar chances gets to make a check?

Any attempt to abstract rules is going to have ridiculous situations come up because they're rules that are attempting to emulate reality, not reality itself.

Under 3.x/PF, it is impossible for a 1st level character to kill a 20th level character no matter what the circumstances. My 1st level character could have the 20th level character tied up, conscious, and bare-ass naked. I could then walk up with a knife and attempt to kill the 20th level character by slitting his/her/its throat...and there is absolutely no iteration of the rules in which that action is physically possible. The 20th level character is going to have far too many HP and far too high of a Constitution save against a coup de gras for me to be able to kill him/her/it, and even if successful the best I get is an automatic critical hit.

Other fun examples from games I've actually played in: Jumping over 150 ft from a stand-still with no magic or supernatural abilities involved, falling from low orbit with no armor, parachute, or anything else to slow descent or absorb the impact and surviving, climbing up a 80 ft sheer wall in under 6 seconds and kill four people with a sword once at the top (again with no magic or supernatural abilities involved), shooting a sniper through his scope at a distance of 500 yards with a handgun twice, timing a fall through a helicopter's blades so that he made it through undamaged and landed on the cockpit, saying "I went that way" to a group of guards and having them all believe it.

That's why there is a living, breathing person behind the DM screen to make these sorts of judgement calls. If the rules covered every single situation and did so flawlessly, there would be no need for a DM/GM/Storyteller/Referee and we'd all just say what our characters did and consult charts to find out what happens like in the Legend of Drizzt board game.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Any attempt to abstract rules is going to have ridiculous situations come up because they're rules that are attempting to emulate reality, not reality itself.

Under 3.x/PF, it is impossible for a 1st level character to kill a 20th level character no matter what the circumstances. My 1st level character could have the 20th level character tied up, conscious, and bare-ass naked. I could then walk up with a knife and attempt to kill the 20th level character by slitting his/her/its throat...and there is absolutely no iteration of the rules in which that action is physically possible. The 20th level character is going to have far too many HP and far too high of a Constitution save against a coup de gras for me to be able to kill him/her/it, and even if successful the best I get is an automatic critical hit.

Other fun examples from games I've actually played in: Jumping over 150 ft from a stand-still with no magic or supernatural abilities involved, falling from low orbit with no armor, parachute, or anything else to slow descent or absorb the impact and surviving, climbing up a 80 ft sheer wall in under 6 seconds and kill four people with a sword once at the top (again with no magic or supernatural abilities involved), shooting a sniper through his scope at a distance of 500 yards with a handgun twice, timing a fall through a helicopter's blades so that he made it through undamaged and landed on the cockpit, saying "I went that way" to a group of guards and having them all believe it.

That's why there is a living, breathing person behind the DM screen to make these sorts of judgement calls. If the rules covered every single situation and did so flawlessly, there would be no need for a DM/GM/Storyteller/Referee and we'd all just say what our characters did and consult charts to find out what happens like in the Legend of Drizzt board game.

Note that in 3e, characters are only really "real life" characters up through level 6ish, then they hit superhero/mythical hero/demigod levels of power. Even in AD&D with its flatter power curve, when you stopped getting HD at 10th level and settled down to rule a kingdom (in theory, if you didn't just start a new game), you were more than mortal by level 9ish and were expected to kill gods in the mid teens.

That progression is well-known by now and kind of expected--of course a level 1 character can't kill a level 20 character with a dagger, any more than Joe Average Guy could expect to do a thing to harm Cú Chulainn or the Hulk. Whether you like it or not is another issue, but if you think of level 20 characters as just level 1 characters with bigger numbers when many Greek heroes were mid-level at best, of course you're going to be disappointed.

[navar100]

Huh? MY CHARACTERS want to live and save the town/city/country/continent/world, they do not want to be party number 23 that failed and died as an example for party 24.

It's totally in character and not metagaming at all to rest when you're obviously impared and a relatively short easy rest will fix this. I rest if I think it will help more than pushing on in real life all the time.

The fix is SIMPLE and EASY, it can be implemented almost trivially.

Long term resources don't come back overnight! Seriously, does ANYONE who believes that recovery is that fast ever been tired? Hint, overnight does not give 100% recovery to real people. Pulling back and resting is a negligable benefit, the adrenaline will wear off and you'll stiffen up and you'll probably perform WORSE the next day.

Rest for purposes of recovering spell slots, healing surges, or any other "long term" resource should START on the second or third day of rest, and then be fairly slow from that point on.

People do what works, that's not metagaming, that's playing my character, if you want my character to push on then DON'T have vital resources that are available for a full recharge anytime I take 6 hours off. Make recovering spell slots or serious fatigue or damage take MONTHS, and people won't back out and rest 6 hours at the drop of a hat.

But don't tell me playing a superintelligent wizard as if he were smart enough to notice the most basic things about how his own powers work is metagaming.

Then that falls into territory of players never using their resources because it takes "forever" to get them back. Everything will be Elaine Bennis' spongeworthy problem because they can't be 100% sure they need to use their rare resource for something more important later.

The solution has already been found - encounter resources. Note to self ignoring my dislike of 4E for the moment, I do like the concept it presented of encounter powers. I preferred 3E's Tome Of Battle idea of having a recovery method so as not to be forced to spam a minor inefficient attack because you ran out of the good stuff, but if unlike in 4E (as my perception) the "at will" attack was at least subjectively decent enough, then if recovery within an encounter is too offensive then not having one will be alright I guess. 3E Spells > Tome of Battle Maneuvers but crusaders, warblades, and swordsages were definitely not complaining about it. Given 5E will give spellcasters back their Vancian spell slots, give the warriors encounter abilities. Spellcasters will have enough spell slots they won't run out, and the DM can easily have more than one fight a day to prevent Nova attacks except perhaps in the BBEG combats where they're necessary.

[demigodus]

Under 3.x/PF, it is impossible for a 1st level character to kill a 20th level character in one hit no matter what the circumstances. My 1st level character could have the 20th level character tied up, conscious, and bare-ass naked. I could then walk up with a knife and attempt to kill the 20th level character by slitting his/her/its throat...and there is absolutely no iteration of the rules in which that action is physically possible. The 20th level character is going to have far too many HP and far too high of a Constitution save against a coup de gras for me to be able to kill him/her/it, and even if successful the best I get is an automatic critical hit.

fixed it for you. I'm actually fine with 20th level characters being tough enough to survive a quick slice across the throat. At least the first few times. They really should be that tough.

Other fun examples from games I've actually played in: Jumping over 150 ft from a stand-still with no magic or supernatural abilities involved falling from low orbit with no armor, parachute, or anything else to slow descent or absorb the impact and surviving, climbing up a 80 ft sheer wall in under 6 seconds and kill four people with a sword once at the top (again with no magic or supernatural abilities involved), shooting a sniper through his scope at a distance of 500 yards with a handgun twice, timing a fall through a helicopter's blades so that he made it through undamaged and landed on the cockpit, saying "I went that way" to a group of guards and having them all believe it.

So you are saying 20th level characters are walking, human shaped bottles of epic? I fail to see a problem with all of those except the helicopter thing, because in that case how fast you fall isn't a factor of your skill, but of gravity, so no matter how skilled you are you can't fall fast enough to pull that off.

That's why there is a living, breathing person behind the DM screen to make these sorts of judgement calls. If the rules covered every single situation and did so flawlessly, there would be no need for a DM/GM/Storyteller/Referee and we'd all just say what our characters did and consult charts to find out what happens like in the Legend of Drizzt board game.

bolded: doesn't really have much to do with the argument at hand. Deciding that people that want the rules to cover more then you do want them to cover every possible situation, is called a strawman argument. It is great for making the person you are arguing with look ridiculous. It is horrible for convincing your opponent of anything.

No, the DM is there to give you a setting, move the plot along, tell you what happened in the rest of the world, cover the sections that the rules intentionally leave vague, because a reasonable group could agree with a reasonable DM's interpretations. There are things however, where a reasonable group could still heavily disagree, because they do not have the appropriate experience to make proper judgements. (examples include anything involving magic, converting stats to abilities, any profession none of them are familiar with, just how epic should a lvl 20 character be, etc.)

Rulebooks exist to cover these situations. If a rulebook doesn't cover situations the players expect it to cover, it is a poorly written rulebook. Naturally, this means that the same rulebook might be poorly written for some groups, and excellent for others. The point of the commoner vs lvl 20 fighter argument is that, it indicates the system going too far to the rule 0 side of the Rule 0 vs Specific Rules scale for some people. Too far to either side of the scale is bad really, it is just different people draw the ideal point at different places. That doesn't mean anyone is wrong. Even if they disagree with you.

Am I making sense here? Does this explain why some of us take issue with the game's "only roll when reasonable" attitude?

[Seerow]

And did 3.5 not allow for the same situations. I remember the first time I played, very first day, as a halfling rouge with a strength of 6, I successfully grabbled the parties fighter (I started off as a minor antagonist who was supposed to join the party after the first fight we had) who had a strength of 18, and held him down for 5 rounds. Also, in 3.5 a nat 20 is an automatic hit and a nat 1 one an automtic failure on attack rolls, so technically one can shoot the moon with a crossbow 5% of the time, and a seasoned warrior will fail to hit the side of a barn that they are standing two feet from 5% of the time.

You're right that at 1st level this could happen in 3.5. And yes, it was just as absurd in 3.5 when a Fighter lost to someone far weaker than him. But in 3.5 at least you could count on the fact that leveling would make such a thing impossible, in 5e it will always be possible. It's embarrasing enough for a 1st level Fighter to lose to a 8 str halfling in a grapple, it's way worse for a 20th level Fighter to do so.

Also, no you can't shoot the moon with a crossbow, because range increments tell you flat out you can't shoot past 10 range increments. You can't just say "I'm taking a -1000 to hit to shoot out 1000 range increments" you can take up to -10 to shoot out to 10x your range. That gives most people about a 1/5th mile shot with a pretty hefty penalty to hit, which seems reasonable enough to me.

And yes, crit fumbles are stupid.


The point is not that 3.5e is flawless, it's that 3.5e had its own flaws, and the changes being discussed take those flaws and make them worse. That isn't a recipe for a good game system.

[TheAbstruseOne]

So you are saying 20th level characters are walking, human shaped bottles of epic? I fail to see a problem with all of those except the helicopter thing, because in that case how fast you fall isn't a factor of your skill, but of gravity, so no matter how skilled you are you can't fall fast enough to pull that off.

None of those were from 20th level characters. The D&D examples are 5th level or lower (with the running-up-a-wall-and-slaughtering-several-people one being 1st level), and the rest are from Shadowrun or World of Darkness and yes, in every case there was nothing supernatural or otherworldly going on except that one character happened to be a troll with some cyberware to boost his Body attribute and another had some cyberware to increase speed and reflexes. The WoD examples didn't use any disciplines or magic. They all just involved some insanely unlikely dice rolls that were covered completely under the rules as written for that system. And trust me, especially when it comes to Shadowrun, I've read all the rules and understand them very well.

No, the DM is there to give you a setting, move the plot along, tell you what happened in the rest of the world, cover the sections that the rules intentionally leave vague, because a reasonable group could agree with a reasonable DM's interpretations. There are things however, where a reasonable group could still heavily disagree, because they do not have the appropriate experience to make proper judgements. (examples include anything involving magic, converting stats to abilities, any profession none of them are familiar with, just how epic should a lvl 20 character be, etc.)

Rulebooks exist to cover these situations. If a rulebook doesn't cover situations the players expect it to cover, it is a poorly written rulebook. Naturally, this means that the same rulebook might be poorly written for some groups, and excellent for others. The point of the commoner vs lvl 20 fighter argument is that, it indicates the system going too far to the rule 0 side of the Rule 0 vs Specific Rules scale for some people. Too far to either side of the scale is bad really, it is just different people draw the ideal point at different places. That doesn't mean anyone is wrong. Even if they disagree with you.

Am I making sense here? Does this explain why some of us take issue with the game's "only roll when reasonable" attitude?

See, here's the problem. You're stating as fact something that is simply your opinion. It's your opinion that a DM's job is solely to be Basil Exposition for a the story and to not make any rules decisions ever but simply enforce the rules as written. Honestly, I'm not even sure if that's a roleplaying game anymore. If that's the type of game you want to play, there are dozens of well-designed MMORPGs or video games which would suit your tastes perfectly.

There is never going to be a tabletop RPG rules system that allows for both freedom of action and that also requires no judgement calls from a DM/GM/etc. They will be required at some point in time to determine that the rules as written do not correctly cover the current situation and create a new ruling because it is simply impossible to create a system in which every single situation that may come up will be covered.

[Petey7]

See, here's the problem. You're stating as fact something that is simply your opinion. It's your opinion that a DM's job is solely to be Basil Exposition for a the story and to not make any rules decisions ever but simply enforce the rules as written. Honestly, I'm not even sure if that's a roleplaying game anymore. If that's the type of game you want to play, there are dozens of well-designed MMORPGs or video games which would suit your tastes perfectly.

There is never going to be a tabletop RPG rules system that allows for both freedom of action and that also requires no judgement calls from a DM/GM/etc. They will be required at some point in time to determine that the rules as written do not correctly cover the current situation and create a new ruling because it is simply impossible to create a system in which every single situation that may come up will be covered.

Not to mention that sometimes the rules seem to contradict themselves (especially in 3.5), and it is necessary for someone to decide which rule to follow.

I'll agree that two different reasonable people can disagree on how something should be ruled, but I don't see how 5e is much different than 3.5 in that respect. Yes, it does encourage DMs to make gut decisions more, but you still had to make gut decisions in every other version of the game. Just like with any other version, the DM gets to make the call, and if someone disagrees, they should bring it up later, like after the session for example.

[Seerow]

Under 3.x/PF, it is impossible for a 1st level character to kill a 20th level character no matter what the circumstances. My 1st level character could have the 20th level character tied up, conscious, and bare-ass naked. I could then walk up with a knife and attempt to kill the 20th level character by slitting his/her/its throat...and there is absolutely no iteration of the rules in which that action is physically possible. The 20th level character is going to have far too many HP and far too high of a Constitution save against a coup de gras for me to be able to kill him/her/it, and even if successful the best I get is an automatic critical hit.

Not sure this is strictly true. Especially if the 20th level character really is naked. Coup De Gras fort save scales really quickly thanks to it being DC 10+damage dealt with you getting a free crit.

Level 1 Fighter with 18 strength and a Scythe is going to deal 8d4+24 damage, average of 44 damage. I can't see a naked unbuffed level 20 character surviving a DC54 fort save. Even most equipped and buffed characters probably can't manage that.

Though yes, with a dagger where it's instead 2d4+8 damage, your odds are significantly lower. You're looking at a DC 23 on average, so all level 20 characters at least have a chance of surviving. Though I don't think any can do it automatically unbuffed and naked (best case scenario is probably someone with a good fort save and 20 con, for a +17, so you still kill him by slitting his throat about 25% of the time.




...and that was a kind of random tangent. Back to the discussion I guess.

[demigodus]

See, here's the problem. You're stating as fact something that is simply your opinion. It's your opinion that a DM's job is solely to be Basil Exposition for a the story and to not make any rules decisions ever but simply enforce the rules as written. Honestly, I'm not even sure if that's a roleplaying game anymore. If that's the type of game you want to play, there are dozens of well-designed MMORPGs or video games which would suit your tastes perfectly.

There is never going to be a tabletop RPG rules system that allows for both freedom of action and that also requires no judgement calls from a DM/GM/etc. They will be required at some point in time to determine that the rules as written do not correctly cover the current situation and create a new ruling because it is simply impossible to create a system in which every single situation that may come up will be covered.

let's see some of the things I said in the section you quoted

No, the DM is there to give you a setting, move the plot along, tell you what happened in the rest of the world, cover the sections that the rules intentionally leave vague...

...it indicates the system going too far to the rule 0 side of the Rule 0 vs Specific Rules scale for some people. Too far to either side of the scale is bad really...

Yes, I don't believe it is the DM's job to rewrite the rules midgame (although that really wasn't something being addressed here, but I will give you that lucky guess). However, no rule interpretations ever? How the heck did you read that from my post after I said that dead opposite of that?

[Stubbazubba]

If the problem with the "reasonableness" rule is too sticky with physical examples, use an illusion to trick a dragon with a huge WIS modifier.

The level 1 Illusionist has a total of +5 to this illusion, for whatever reason, and the Dragon has a +15 to his save against illusions, however that is finally calculated. Is that unreasonable? How on earth are we to know how Illusion magic or Dragon's Wisdom is supposed to work? By the numbers and the dice, there's a decent chance that the Illusionist can get lucky and trick the Dragon, but then again, that's the exact same chance the commoner had to out-wrestle the level 20 Fighter. So where's the cut-off for when something's unreasonable? Is it always the same, based on the disparity in modifiers? Or will it change based on how easily the situation is imagined? In this case, since it's a magical illusion against a magical creature's insight, basically no DM would be able to rule it out with an appeal to what seems realistic, and most would probably allow the roll, not realizing that, strictly-speaking, the odds are just the same here as in that instance when you laughed at the level 1 Wizard who wanted to try his darndest to out-wrestle the level 20 Fighter NPC the first session. If it's left up to the DM, then magic-users will get a lot more leniency because "it's magic" is a great explanation for plausibility in a fantasy setting. Mundanes, on the other hand, are only likely to be attempting tasks that the DM can actually imagine, and thus reject. So this Rule 0 nonsense applied to anything is just one more slap in the face for mundanes. This is why DM fiat is not a fair or good game mechanic, because it will be applied differently to different players at the same table without the DM even realizing it, let alone those who actively abuse it.

That's besides the problem that Seerow pointed out, that magic-users will be getting more and more reality-warping options hard-wired in this D&D Lite Edition, while mundanes have to play Mother May I with the DM.

[NichG]

Level is a distraction in this discussion. There's no reason that a Lv20 character should necessarily be better at anything than a Lv1 character except that which their level directly represents. You could have the aged, experienced veteran fighter whose strength was 18 back in the day but has come down to 12 from age penalties lose an arm-wrestling match with the young, inexperienced warrior with incredibly brute strength (still has his 18), and have that not only be a possibility but actually be the logical outcome.

The point of separating the Ability checks from level-based stuff is to make level progression not necessarily imply all-around power. The real thing that remains to be seen is whether that idea will be violated by other mechanics, such as casters getting spells that let them all be Str 18 when they want to be.

[Knaight]

And did 3.5 not allow for the same situations. I remember the first time I played, very first day, as a halfling rouge with a strength of 6, I successfully grabbled the parties fighter (I started off as a minor antagonist who was supposed to join the party after the first fight we had) who had a strength of 18, and held him down for 5 rounds. Also, in 3.5 a nat 20 is an automatic hit and a nat 1 one an automtic failure on attack rolls, so technically one can shoot the moon with a crossbow 5% of the time, and a seasoned warrior will fail to hit the side of a barn that they are standing two feet from 5% of the time.

The presence of flaws in another game does not negate the fact that said flaws are a problem in the game being discussed.

[Menteith]

Level is a distraction in this discussion. There's no reason that a Lv20 character should necessarily be better at anything than a Lv1 character except that which their level directly represents. You could have the aged, experienced veteran fighter whose strength was 18 back in the day but has come down to 12 from age penalties lose an arm-wrestling match with the young, inexperienced warrior with incredibly brute strength (still has his 18), and have that not only be a possibility but actually be the logical outcome.

The point of separating the Ability checks from level-based stuff is to make level progression not necessarily imply all-around power. The real thing that remains to be seen is whether that idea will be violated by other mechanics, such as casters getting spells that let them all be Str 18 when they want to be.

Age and level aren't linked. Sure, it's entirely possible that a level capped melee class will no other options other than attacking will be weaker than what they were back at level one. But that's....well, that's terrible. Level 20 characters are at minimum the most powerful example of humanity. They are the strongest and smartest. There is no reason why a maximum level Fighter should ever lose to a minimum level Fighter. Again, this is subjective, and I actually feel that level 20 should be far more than just a strong human.

[Knaight]

Age and level aren't linked. Sure, it's entirely possible that a level capped melee class will no other options other than attacking will be weaker than what they were back at level one. But that's....well, that's terrible. Level 20 characters are at minimum the most powerful example of humanity. They are the strongest and smartest. There is no reason why a maximum level Fighter should ever lose to a minimum level Fighter. Again, this is subjective, and I actually feel that level 20 should be far more than just a strong human.

The point being made was that things don't need to go up in level, unless they are specifically connected to the character concept. The fighter is no more magically competent, this particular one is no stronger (but probably far more skilled), one who doesn't really do much in the way of archery might still be terrible at range, so on and so forth. The idea is the removal of omni competence, where a level 20 is only better than a level 1 at the specific things they have chosen to be better at.

This could work, but it requires WotC to be fairly competent. WotC's competence is likely to be a sticking point regardless.

[Menteith]

The point being made was that things don't need to go up in level, unless they are specifically connected to the character concept. The fighter is no more magically competent, this particular one is no stronger (but probably far more skilled), one who doesn't really do much in the way of archery might still be terrible at range, so on and so forth. The idea is the removal of omni competence, where a level 20 is only better than a level 1 at the specific things they have chosen to be better at.

This could work, but it requires WotC to be fairly competent. WotC's competence is likely to be a sticking point regardless.

As that's already how it works in previous editions, I don't have a problem with the theory. A Fighter in 3.5 is probably less competent at stealth than a first level Rogue. But when you're being shown up at something pretty core to your class (physical strength on a class that is limited to purely melee attacks and physical damage, which is governed by strength in 5E) by someone who is so far beneath you they'll need to hit your body for an hour to kill you, then I have a problem with how the scaling works.

[Knaight]

As that's already how it works in previous editions, I don't have a problem with the theory. A Fighter in 3.5 is probably less competent at stealth than a first level Rogue. But when you're being shown up at something pretty core to your class (physical strength on a class that is limited to purely melee attacks and physical damage, which is governed by strength in 5E) by someone who is so far beneath you they'll need to hit your body for an hour to kill you, then I have a problem with how the scaling works.

This gets into the question of how key to the class it really is. Sure, the higher level fighter may have a lower strength score - that doesn't mean that they won't effortlessly win a fight. Maybe they're far faster. Maybe they're just far better with their weapon, and can block everything coming and get past most defense. So on and so forth. Now, if the type of fighter is specifically supposed to be a strong one who can wrestle giant beasts, and they start losing? Then we have a problem, because anyone who's throwing trolls around really shouldn't be losing at arm wrestling to a 1st level character. However, strength really doesn't need to be core to all fighters, so it works out.

[Menteith]

This gets into the question of how key to the class it really is. Sure, the higher level fighter may have a lower strength score - that doesn't mean that they won't effortlessly win a fight. Maybe they're far faster. Maybe they're just far better with their weapon, and can block everything coming and get past most defense. So on and so forth. Now, if the type of fighter is specifically supposed to be a strong one who can wrestle giant beasts, and they start losing? Then we have a problem, because anyone who's throwing trolls around really shouldn't be losing at arm wrestling to a 1st level character. However, strength really doesn't need to be core to all fighters, so it works out.

Except in the weird examples we've been looking at, the Fighter has had the maximum allowable Strength from what we can gather, and there's still a good chance they'll lose contested checks with random shmucks.

[NichG]

Except in the weird examples we've been looking at, the Fighter has had the maximum allowable Strength from what we can gather, and there's still a good chance they'll lose contested checks with random shmucks.

Thats a variance issue with a d20 versus a ~8-20 stat range corresponding to a modifier range of about 6. That means that the die has a range three times larger than the biggest range between characters you'd expect to see. But saying its a Fighter isn't really relevant - the same should be true of a Wizard with an 18 Str, or a Commoner with an 18 Str or anyone with an 18 Str.

Another way to put it is that its a fundamental assumption of the system that the game consists of a series of comparisons between somewhat matched entities. No contest that occurs will be so mismatched that numerically one side is guaranteed to win. This means that its not a system about diseased old man versus Hercules, its a system about a guy who can lift 200lbs against a guy who can lift 150lbs, where many ineffable factors could come into play in the form of a random element that is larger than the absolute level of ability.

[holywhippet]

I don't know if it's been covered in the other threads (and no way I'm going to search through them all), but have they explained why the two sample clerics have a different number of orisons known? My guess is that it's either to do with the God being worshiped or to do with the differing wisdom bonus.

[Menteith]

This means that its not a system about diseased old man versus Hercules, its a system about a guy who can lift 200lbs against a guy who can lift 150lbs, where many ineffable factors could come into play in the form of a random element that is larger than the absolute level of ability.

Why would I pay money for a system that incapable of modeling realistic behavior outside of specialized situations? I can guarantee that large stat disparities will come up when monsters are brought into it, even if you're ok with just ignoring low strength instances. Assume that the Str Ratio between a Fighter and a Dragon (or whatever monster) is similar to that of a Fighter and a 1 Str commoner - why is this situation not well covered by the rules?

This is all applicable to most contested checks. Here are a few absurd situations that can come up with scaling this low;

- The world's best detective is going to be unable to realize that the crumb-covered child is lying about eating cookies if the dice want to be weird.

- Someone who's never see a rope before will tie up Houdini inescapably.

- The expert tracker will be unable to follow the footprints of a drunk orc in soft mud.

All of these can come up with the current contested system....and what's more, they'll come up a statisically significant amount of the time.

[Faerieheart]

Joe the strong as a bull 1st level commoner that's been pulling plows and doing manual labor all his life has say 16 strength. He comes into contact with James the 20th level fighter who's has 16 strength as well. They are laughing and joking in a bar and decide to see who's stronger.

Now the 20th level fighter has been slaying dragons and killing trolls with a sword of fire, but his strength is the same as Joe's. He certainly doesn't have 20 levels of arm wrestling, and even if he was a skilled arm wrestler only a certain amount of skill applies to what is mostly a straight strength check.

Even in 3.5 that's all it would be. Arm wrestling isn't a grapple check, it's an opposed strength check. In 3.5 the commoner and fighter have an equal chance. Same here.

The two get in a sword fight however, or an actual grapple where skill really applies then it becomes more than a opposed strength check.

Why should the level 20 fighter automatically win an arm wrestling match with a 1st level commoner? It's strength vs. strength.

[NichG]

Why would I pay money for a system that incapable of modeling realistic behavior outside of specialized situations?

D&D 3.5 doesn't model accidental death due to falling off of horses. It doesn't model the behavior of weather, or how long a certain quantity of fuel can burn, or the number of fragments produce when an object is destroyed, or any number of other behaviors. No system can or should try to model everything. Universal models are either complex or wrong. A better approach is local approximations of the desired behavior that are stitched together where one approximation begins to fail and another takes over.

I can guarantee that large stat disparities will come up when monsters are brought into it, even if you're ok with just ignoring low strength instances.

Not all systems support the idea that it is ever possible for a human to win an arm-wrestling match with a 60ft tall Titan. There are many campaigns where it is reasonable to say 'this particular act is not something that a human can succeed at'.

That said, this system can handle a 60ft tall Titan arm-wrestling with an exceptionally powerful mortal. It just depends where you cap the variances.

Basically, the way I interpret it is: the opposed d20 roll is a model for a subset of possible interactions. For any advantage greater than, say, a spread of 10 points, it is a bad model. The system explicitly recognizes this and says 'if one side has overwhelming advantage, they simply win'.

A concrete mechanic that says this explicitly would be something like:

- Compare the modifiers of side A and side B. If the difference is 10 or greater, the side with the advantage always succeeds. Otherwise, have each side roll 1d20 and add their modifier and compare.

However, this already means that everything has to be statted on the same scale, which is difficult.

Assume that the Str Ratio between a Fighter and a Dragon (or whatever monster) is similar to that of a Fighter and a 1 Str commoner - why is this situation not well covered by the rules?

The rules in this case say 'the monster wins, no roll'.

This is all applicable to most contested checks. Here are a few absurd situations that can come up with scaling this low;

- The world's best detective is going to be unable to realize that the crumb-covered child is lying about eating cookies if the dice want to be weird.

- Someone who's never see a rope before will tie up Houdini inescapably.

- The expert tracker will be unable to follow the footprints of a drunk orc in soft mud.

All of these can come up with the current contested system....and what's more, they'll come up a statisically significant amount of the time.

All of these are consequences of the variance being much larger than the maximum possible advantage. This suggests to me that, again, the system is not trying to describe any of these situations. The system is instead only using the dice to model cases where the two contesting parties are nearly equal. Any significant inequality means that another approximation takes over - the better one wins.

[Conundrum]

As that's already how it works in previous editions, I don't have a problem with the theory. A Fighter in 3.5 is probably less competent at stealth than a first level Rogue. But when you're being shown up at something pretty core to your class (physical strength on a class that is limited to purely melee attacks and physical damage, which is governed by strength in 5E) by someone who is so far beneath you they'll need to hit your body for an hour to kill you, then I have a problem with how the scaling works.

That's not how it works in previous editions. Because of the 1/2 level scaling, a warrior gets better at Arcana just by levelling up. How does that make sense? Is he reading the Wizard's arcane tomes before bed each night?

Another way to put it is that its a fundamental assumption of the system that the game consists of a series of comparisons between somewhat matched entities. No contest that occurs will be so mismatched that numerically one side is guaranteed to win. This means that its not a system about diseased old man versus Hercules, its a system about a guy who can lift 200lbs against a guy who can lift 150lbs, where many ineffable factors could come into play in the form of a random element that is larger than the absolute level of ability.

^ this.

[blackseven]

bolded: doesn't really have much to do with the argument at hand. Deciding that people that want the rules to cover more then you do want them to cover every possible situation, is called a strawman argument. It is great for making the person you are arguing with look ridiculous. It is horrible for convincing your opponent of anything.

People are arguing that a STR 1 cripple possibly beating a STR 16 adventurer at arm wrestling is some sort of absolute repudiation of the system. I would argue that, while it does show the math is wonky in extreme situations, the very situation presented is OUTSIDE THE SCOPE of what the D&D rules are expected to cover.

This harkens back to people complaining that it was impossible to run a verisimilitudinous economy based on 3.5 RAW. Sure, there were things that maybe should have been patched (given values for commoner's wage vs. common tools, for instance), but citing it as definitive proof of "failure" is, well, intellectually dishonest.

The basic problem with the math is the D20. The D20 is horrible for D&D, but it simultaneously DEFINES D&D.

That's not how it works in previous editions. Because of the 1/2 level scaling, a warrior gets better at Arcana just by levelling up. How does that make sense? Is he reading the Wizard's arcane tomes before bed each night?

This was ONLY an issue in 4th. No other edition featured the automatic level scale. (I don't mean this as an edition war statement. I LIKE fourth, and having some form of Auto scale was a good idea, I think.)

[Tehnar]

If the problem with the "reasonableness" rule is too sticky with physical examples, use an illusion to trick a dragon with a huge WIS modifier.

The level 1 Illusionist has a total of +5 to this illusion, for whatever reason, and the Dragon has a +15 to his save against illusions, however that is finally calculated. Is that unreasonable? How on earth are we to know how Illusion magic or Dragon's Wisdom is supposed to work? By the numbers and the dice, there's a decent chance that the Illusionist can get lucky and trick the Dragon, but then again, that's the exact same chance the commoner had to out-wrestle the level 20 Fighter. So where's the cut-off for when something's unreasonable? Is it always the same, based on the disparity in modifiers? Or will it change based on how easily the situation is imagined? In this case, since it's a magical illusion against a magical creature's insight, basically no DM would be able to rule it out with an appeal to what seems realistic, and most would probably allow the roll, not realizing that, strictly-speaking, the odds are just the same here as in that instance when you laughed at the level 1 Wizard who wanted to try his darndest to out-wrestle the level 20 Fighter NPC the first session. If it's left up to the DM, then magic-users will get a lot more leniency because "it's magic" is a great explanation for plausibility in a fantasy setting. Mundanes, on the other hand, are only likely to be attempting tasks that the DM can actually imagine, and thus reject. So this Rule 0 nonsense applied to anything is just one more slap in the face for mundanes. This is why DM fiat is not a fair or good game mechanic, because it will be applied differently to different players at the same table without the DM even realizing it, let alone those who actively abuse it.

Well said.

Thats a variance issue with a d20 versus a ~8-20 stat range corresponding to a modifier range of about 6. That means that the die has a range three times larger than the biggest range between characters you'd expect to see. But saying its a Fighter isn't really relevant - the same should be true of a Wizard with an 18 Str, or a Commoner with an 18 Str or anyone with an 18 Str.

Another way to put it is that its a fundamental assumption of the system that the game consists of a series of comparisons between somewhat matched entities. No contest that occurs will be so mismatched that numerically one side is guaranteed to win. This means that its not a system about diseased old man versus Hercules, its a system about a guy who can lift 200lbs against a guy who can lift 150lbs, where many ineffable factors could come into play in the form of a random element that is larger than the absolute level of ability.

The problem is that you don't know what entities are matched. Sure for the STR example most people would agree that a cripple can't beat a ogre, but what about other situations? Like in Stubbazubba post, where do you draw the line? What difference in abilities will make one autosucceed, and why didn't the designers put it in the first place?

D&D 3.5 doesn't model accidental death due to falling off of horses. It doesn't model the behavior of weather, or how long a certain quantity of fuel can burn, or the number of fragments produce when an object is destroyed, or any number of other behaviors. No system can or should try to model everything. Universal models are either complex or wrong. A better approach is local approximations of the desired behavior that are stitched together where one approximation begins to fail and another takes over.

Actually in the real world universal models are quite simple. To model any nonrelativistic, non quantum interaction between any two or more objects all you need to start with are Newtons laws. That is not to say that for specific cases you need approximations to even have a chance of calculating things, but the basic "rules" or "laws" of the system are simple.

In my game, I am looking for a system that can model common things adventurers will encounter, with a good set of guidelines from which you can extrapolate for those situations that are not common.

Basically, the way I interpret it is: the opposed d20 roll is a model for a subset of possible interactions. For any advantage greater than, say, a spread of 10 points, it is a bad model. The system explicitly recognizes this and says 'if one side has overwhelming advantage, they simply win'.

A concrete mechanic that says this explicitly would be something like:

- Compare the modifiers of side A and side B. If the difference is 10 or greater, the side with the advantage always succeeds. Otherwise, have each side roll 1d20 and add their modifier and compare.

However, this already means that everything has to be statted on the same scale, which is difficult.

The rules in this case say 'the monster wins, no roll'.

All of these are consequences of the variance being much larger than the maximum possible advantage. This suggests to me that, again, the system is not trying to describe any of these situations. The system is instead only using the dice to model cases where the two contesting parties are nearly equal. Any significant inequality means that another approximation takes over - the better one wins.

You made a houserule there about, but such a thing is not currently in the system (if it will ever be). Apart from the fact that it is not a good houserule, it is a stopgag solution to the problem that the designers should have already noticed and provided a solution of their own. I mean when I buy a product I expect it to work, not that I have to fix it all the time.

People are arguing that a STR 1 cripple possibly beating a STR 16 adventurer at arm wrestling is some sort of absolute repudiation of the system. I would argue that, while it does show the math is wonky in extreme situations, the very situation presented is OUTSIDE THE SCOPE of what the D&D rules are expected to cover.

The basic problem with the math is the D20. The D20 is horrible for D&D, but it simultaneously DEFINES D&D.

The d20 is a problem when the difference between the best possible modifier and the worst possible modifier the PCs can achieve is 6 (or 9 in the case of skills). If it is possible to increase that disparity to 20+ then some of those problems go away.

The problem only exists when the modifiers creatures can have to the d20 roll are small compared to each other and to the span of values on the d20.

When that mechanic is the core resolution method of 5E we have a big ****ing problem.

[Conundrum]

Out of interest, do you think it's a problem that someone with a +17 modifier to a skill would lose to someone with no modifier to the skill 10% of the time? That's hardly an insignificant chance, and yet the modifier difference is still massive.

[Aidan305]

People are arguing that a STR 1 cripple possibly beating a STR 16 adventurer at arm wrestling is some sort of absolute repudiation of the system. I would argue that, while it does show the math is wonky in extreme situations, the very situation presented is OUTSIDE THE SCOPE of what the D&D rules are expected to cover.

Isn't that covered in the DM's guide under "Don't bother calling for checks"?

[Tehnar]

Out of interest, do you think it's a problem that someone with a +17 modifier to a skill would lose to someone with no modifier to the skill 10% of the time? That's hardly an insignificant chance, and yet the modifier difference is still massive.

In a direct contests, the guy with a +17 modifier loses or ties with the no modifier guy 1.5% of the time, strictly losing 0.75% of the time. That seems acceptable to me, as a artifact of the model.

I don't see where you got your 10% figure.