D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

[Knaight]

No, it's not. Here's the basic illustration.

Let's say I have a +7 Sneak. The Guard has a +4 perception.

If we use a Passive value, and I need to meet or exceed the guard's skill check, I need a 7 or better to succeed. I succeed 70% of the time.

Let's say we're making opposed rolls. I can get from an 8 to a 27 on my d20 roll. The guard can get from 5 to 24 on his. There's no curve involved for either of our rolls - they're straight d20 - so each of these values has an even frequency for each of us.

The first case is 1d20+7 vs. 14. The latter is effectively 1d20-1d20+3 vs 0, which does have a curve.

[obryn]

The first case is 1d20+7 vs. 14. The latter is effectively 1d20-1d20+3 vs 0, which does have a curve.

True! Whoops. Even so, you're increasing the overall variability in the system, which is my main point.

Take another example. I have a +10 to sneak. The guard has a +0 to perception. Against a flat DC of 10, my chance of failure is literally 0%. I cannot get below an 11.

If we add a die roll to the guard, my DC range, instead of being a flat 0, ranges from 1 to 20. My chance of failure is distinctly non-zero at this point. Variability is increased.

-O

[Doug Lampert]

Use the same rule that every game has (including D&D 5e).
Only roll for important things.
Otherwise you get such wonderful things as the merchant not being able to see you because he rolled a 1 on his spot check, or the guard is incapable of hearing you because he rolled a 1 on his listen check, or the experienced blacksmith falling into his forge because he rolled a 1 on his check to move across the cluttered floor of his workshop.

You only get those things if a one is an autofail, which it is not for skills in any of 3.0, 3.5, PF, 4th edition, or Next.

So no problem. The merchant can see you, even on a 1; the guard can hear you, even on a one; and the blacksmith doesn't fall into his forge, even on a one. And you can roll for things and expect reasonable results, even on a one. Because the game rules work reasonably well.

Except in D&DNext where any dweeb can beat VERY HARD DCs with a fairly good chance.

And if your modifer is +4 or less?
Then you fail on a one, auto doesn't come into it.

The things you list are all DC0 or less in 3.x.

[wadledo]

You only get those things if a one is an autofail, which it is not for skills in any of 3.0, 3.5, PF, 4th edition, or Next.

So no problem. The merchant can see you, even on a 1; the guard can hear you, even on a one; and the blacksmith doesn't fall into his forge, even on a one. And you can roll for things and expect reasonable results, even on a one. Because the game rules work reasonably well.

The things you list are all DC0 or less in 3.x.

Actually, the rules for Spot and listen are kinda wonky in 3.5.
+1 to the DC per 10 feet, and +5 if the person is distracted. So they only need to be distracted and 10 feet away.
And it's a Uneven flagstone floor (the modifiers for balance don't go into non-narrow surfaces having an increased difficulty for difficult surfaces, interestingly), then the Blacksmith has failed his check by 5 or more, so he falls.

So the things I listed are not DC 0 checks (or, at least, one is not, and the other two are situational).

[Menteith]

Actually, the rules for Spot and listen are kinda wonky in 3.5.
+1 to the DC per 10 feet, and +5 if the person is distracted. So they only need to be distracted and 10 feet away.
And it's a Uneven flagstone floor (the modifiers for balance don't go into non-narrow surfaces having an increased difficulty for difficult surfaces, interestingly), then the Blacksmith has failed his check by 5 or more, so he falls.

So the things I listed are not DC 0 checks (or, at least, one is not, and the other two are situational).

Explain to me why any of this wouldn't involve taking 10 in a 3.X system?

[wadledo]

Explain to me why any of this wouldn't involve taking 10 in a 3.X system?

Because if you do that, then for one thing, why bother with dice at all? You could do even better and not roll for pointless rolls.
In addition, if you took ten, then how can Kurald Galain argue about how Standard deviation is relevant to the situation or not?

[Menteith]

Because if you do that, then for one thing, why bother with dice at all? You could do even better and not roll for pointless rolls.
In addition, if you took ten, then how can Kurald Galain argue about how Standard deviation is relevant to the situation or not?

The problem is that "pointless" rolls are a really subjective thing - what is and isn't a pointless roll is arbitrary. This has come up a few times already, because it's a pretty big core issue with D&D Next's mechanics.

Taking 10 has very clear limits on how it's used, which make sense to me from both a balance and verisimilitude perspective. Most people, when they're not under pressure, will be taking 10 if it's going to result in a success. This is why expert swimmers don't die every 20 laps, or why we can hear each other. And in situations where one can't take 10, it still makes sense (at least to me) - even if you know your way around a forge, you may very well trip into it if you're being chased by a ravening hellbeast or something, and you're under pressure.

In D&D Next, in order to avoid downright silly situations (like a venerable drunk cripple with no combat experience wrestling down and pinning a raging barbarian), you can't actually use the rules for resolving the conflict if you want a reasonable outcome (a 3 Str character will win against a 20 Str a depressing amount of the time). You can't actually use the mechanics of the game to resolve issues like that unless you're comfortable with the lowest possible strength beating the highest possible strength in a contest reasonably often (last I checked, a 17str difference will result in the low strength character winning ~10% of the time). And if you say "no" to that check, should you say "no" to other, similar checks? If a Dragon grapples a Wizard, does the Wizard even get a roll to resist it (it may very well be the exact same strength difference as the situation above).

Because the bounded accuracy system places a significantly higher weight on a variable, as opposed to a static modifier, there are a host of situations where the elite of the elite will completely and utterly fail, and the dregs with the lowest possible scores will succeed. The frequency with which this occurs is troubling. The only way to subvert this currently is to simply not allow rolls when the DM would disapprove of the check. There is going to be an issue every time a player points out that they actually have a decent chance at success, and the DM tells them no with the reasoning "I don't think it's realistic". There needs to be a more robust way of dealing with this than leaving it entirely up to a the DM in a highly subjective manner.

[wadledo]

The problem is that "pointless" rolls are a really subjective thing - what is and isn't a pointless roll is arbitrary. This has come up a few times already, because it's a pretty big core issue with D&D Next's mechanics.

In D&D Next, in order to avoid downright silly situations (like a venerable drunk cripple with no combat experience wrestling down and pinning a raging barbarian), you can't actually use the rules for resolving the conflict if you want a reasonable outcome (a 3 Str character will win against a 20 Str a depressing amount of the time). You can't actually use the mechanics of the game to resolve issues like that unless you're comfortable with the lowest possible strength beating the highest possible strength in a contest reasonably often (last I checked, a 17str difference will result in the low strength character winning ~10% of the time). And if you say "no" to that check, should you say "no" to other, similar checks? If a Dragon grapples a Wizard, does the Wizard even get a roll to resist it (it may very well be the exact same strength difference as the situation above).

I fail to see how the above isn't true of any edition of D&D, or any game for that matter. A pointless roll is not an issue with D&D Next, but instead an issue with role playing games in general.
You seem to be saying that since D&D Next has rules for something, it always, absolutely must be used, even when other options exist for the same situation.
For example, you could roll, take ten, or forgo the check, all of which are valid options. But only the last makes sense to me, since the merchant not being able to see you is not something that needs to be held in question unless the story calls for it, the PC's are doing something that would require the merchant to need to spot, or you want to roll for everything.

In addition, you seem to be contradicting yourself. You say that you can not use the rules as written to achieve a reasonable outcome, but in this scenario, for example, the old man poses no or little threat.
So why can't the barbarian take ten in his attempt to pin the man? As an event in a game, it's not particularly important that the old man be grappled or not.

[noparlpf]

It might be impossible to manage in an RPG, but I'd kind of like to see physical stats (and aging, including pre-adult stats) handled at least semi-realistically. I know my Str, Dex, and Con can fluctuate by several points each in a three-month span depending on activity.

[1337 b4k4]

And if you say "no" to that check, should you say "no" to other, similar checks? If a Dragon grapples a Wizard, does the Wizard even get a roll to resist it (it may very well be the exact same strength difference as the situation above).

We've had this argument before, but it seems to me that if the town cripple having a chance against the ragin barbarian is way out line, then the 100lb soaking wet wizard shouldn't have a chance against the 5 ton dragon either.

[wadledo]

We've had this argument before, but it seems to me that if the town cripple having a chance against the ragin barbarian is way out line, then the 100lb soaking wet wizard shouldn't have a chance against the 5 ton dragon either.

Unless of course the wizard is a PC, in which case you should allow them to roll, because you are not playing to simulate reality (otherwise you wouldn't be playing), but instead playing for fun, and it's more fun to allow players a chance to succeed (however small) than simply kill them.

[noparlpf]

Unless of course the wizard is a PC, in which case you should allow them to roll, because you are not playing to simulate reality (otherwise you wouldn't be playing), but instead playing for fun, and it's more fun to allow players a chance to succeed (however small) than simply kill them.

Okay, so actually make that chance small. That's all anybody's been saying.

[Surrealistik]

Highlights from the new package:

• Rogues got hit with a nerftruck (love how Sneak Attack is now a weaker, more situational Deadly Strike; great job WotC), with fewer proficiencies and maneuvers than Fighters, and less HP, their only edge being additional skill training (very bad).
• Retarded overtly specific skills of 3.5 past have been sadly re-implemented (bad).
• OP Sorcs (and less OP Warlocks) have been removed (good until WotC figures out how to make them not degenerate).
• The notorious encounter breaker Cause Fear was taken out (should have just been revised but sure).
• Infamous Illusion school destroyer True Seeing has been reintroduced at full strength and a lower spell level (bad).
• WotC introduced a game breaking synergy via the Master Sneak and Stealthy Escape feats (bad).
• Illusionist Wizards are all kinds of badass, their glaring True Seeing vulnerability notwithstanding (good). Dislike how they can't use Disguise Self at-will (bad).

[TheOOB]

Highlights from the new package:

• Rogues got hit with a nerftruck (love how Sneak Attack is now a weaker, more situational Deadly Strike; great job WotC), with fewer proficiencies and maneuvers than Fighters, and less HP, their only edge being additional skill training (very bad).
• Retarded overtly specific skills of 3.5 past have been sadly re-implemented (bad).
• OP Sorcs (and less OP Warlocks) have been removed (good until WotC figures out how to make them not degenerate).
• The notorious encounter breaker Cause Fear was taken out (should have just been revised but sure).
• Infamous Illusion school destroyer True Seeing has been reintroduced at full strength and a lower spell level (bad).
• WotC introduced a game breaking synergy via the Master Sneak and Stealthy Escape feats (bad).
• Illusionist Wizards are all kinds of badass, their glaring True Seeing vulnerability notwithstanding (good). Dislike how they can't use Disguise Self at-will (bad).

[*]Rogues got hit with a nerftruck (love how Sneak Attack is now a weaker, more situational Deadly Strike; great job WotC), with fewer proficiencies and maneuvers than Fighters, and less HP, their only edge being additional skill training (very bad).

-If you want pure melee damage, you should play a fighter, under optimal circumstances, a rogue can deal a fighter level of damage, but their schtick is skills and battlefield mobility. If any class can fight in melee as well as a fighter, something is wrong. Sneak attack before was boring and very swingy. If you could get it consistently the rogue was overpowered, if you rarely got it the rogue sucked. Now rogues have lots of options and can be built the way you want.
[*]Retarded overtly specific skills of 3.5 past have been sadly re-implemented (bad).

-Yes, I'd prefer a more condensed skill system, but you should see skill training as a small bonus, your attribute is what's really important.
[*]OP Sorcs (and less OP Warlocks) have been removed (good until WotC figures out how to make them not degenerate).

Sorc wasn't OP, and was always just a "hey look at this" thing for gencon. Remember preparation casting is waaaaaay better than spontaneous casting.
[*]Infamous Illusion school destroyer True Seeing has been reintroduced at full strength and a lower spell level (bad).

No arcane caster should rely entirely on one trick, and it's important to give players the tools to overcome challenges. I do feel it should only overcome illusions level 5 or lower however, and make a higher level true seeing.
[*]WotC introduced a game breaking synergy via the Master Sneak and Stealthy Escape feats (bad).

It's powerful, but game breaking? First you need cover or concealment to pull it off, and there are lots of ways around it. Stealthy Escape is fine, Master Sneak may be a little problematic(I don't like feats that remove all risk from taking an action).
[*]Illusionist Wizards are all kinds of badass, their glaring True Seeing vulnerability notwithstanding (good). Dislike how they can't use Disguise Self at-will (bad).

They are powerful, but illusion is always a high risk scenario. Unlimited Disguise self would be a)overpowered, and b)not follow the design they are seeming to do with. Signature spells seem like they are combat spells, ensuring a wizard always has at least one decent spell every fight.

[Craft (Cheese)]

[*]Infamous Illusion school destroyer True Seeing has been reintroduced at full strength and a lower spell level (bad).

No arcane caster should rely entirely on one trick, and it's important to give players the tools to overcome challenges. I do feel it should only overcome illusions level 5 or lower however, and make a higher level true seeing.

Eh, I don't really like True Seeing for the same reasons I don't like Antimagic Field or Rust Monsters. They basically just pick out certain types of characters and say "Hey you, congratulations! You get to sit in the corner with your thumb up your ass while your other party members do all the real work."

I'd much rather it work by introducing a complication rather than an outright "No" button. Like, being in an antimagic field means you have to suffer ASF, or you have to expend two spell slots for each casting.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Eh, I don't really like True Seeing for the same reasons I don't like Antimagic Field or Rust Monsters. They basically just pick out certain types of characters and say "Hey you, congratulations! You get to sit in the corner with your thumb up your ass while your other party members do all the real work."

I'd much rather it work by introducing a complication rather than an outright "No" button. Like, being in an antimagic field means you have to suffer ASF, or you have to expend two spell slots for each casting.

Yeah, for true seeing I'd like to see something like "every Illusion spell allows a Wis save when you interact with it, but true seeing allows a Wis save when you first see it." It doesn't give you a capability you didn't already have, it just makes it a lot easier to use.

For AMF, making it more like a zone of automatic dispel magic would be good. You enter the AMF (or someone casts it where you are), you get hit with a dispel magic each turn you're in the area and as a counterspell each time you try to cast a spell. It allows both traditional uses of AMFs ("stick the mage in a cell and prevent him casting anything" and "a beholder suddenly suppresses your buffs") without making it an off switch for magic.

[Kurald Galain]

You know your resolution mechanic has problems when you decide that simply comparing static numbers (as by taking ten) gives better results than rolling the dice would.

Besides, it doesn't solve the issue here. You can always declare you're under stress and roll anyway, and when you do you suddenly have a 10% chance of breaking out of iron manacles with only an average strength score.

If you want pure melee damage, you should play a fighter, under optimal circumstances, a rogue can deal a fighter level of damage, but their schtick is skills and battlefield mobility.

Yes, we get that, but the point is that the rogue's schtick doesn't work too well. In 4E, a fifth-level rogue has 7 or 8 powers plus sneak attack; in 5E, a rogue has only two powers at that level. If you take e.g. Sneak Attack and Skill Mastery, you've got no room left for battlefield mobility.

Also, I note that fighters can pick from the same list of powers as rogues do; so you can make a fighter with Sneak Attack and Skill Mastery, and get a third power before level 5, and a better attack bonus and more hit points for free. Rogues suck in the current playtest.

[RedWarlock]

Actually, no, if you read page 1 of the maneuvers file, it has separate lists for fighters and rogues. Sneak Attack is NOT on the fighter list.

[wadledo]

Yes, we get that, but the point is that the rogue's schtick doesn't work too well. In 4E, a fifth-level rogue has 7 or 8 powers plus sneak attack; in 5E, a rogue has only two powers at that level. If you take e.g. Sneak Attack and Skill Mastery, you've got no room left for battlefield mobility.

That's an incredibly false comparison, since in 4e basic powers did some of the same things skills do in 5e, as well as having 20 levels more progression wise than the 5e rogue.

[Kurald Galain]

That's an incredibly false comparison, since in 4e basic powers did some of the same things skills do in 5e, as well as having 20 levels more progression wise than the 5e rogue.

No, it's really not. A 4E rogue can do high damage, and mobility, and skill mastery straight out of the box from level one (as a matter of fact, so can a 3E rogue). A 5E rogue, in the current playtest, can still not do all of that at level five. That's a very clear comparison.

[Surrealistik]

-If you want pure melee damage, you should play a fighter, under optimal circumstances, a rogue can deal a fighter level of damage, but their schtick is skills and battlefield mobility. If any class can fight in melee as well as a fighter, something is wrong. Sneak attack before was boring and very swingy. If you could get it consistently the rogue was overpowered, if you rarely got it the rogue sucked. Now rogues have lots of options and can be built the way you want.

Are we looking at the same design documentation? Literally the only difference between the fighter and rogue is what I've mentioned, excepting a few maneuvers unique to each class which don't make much of a substantive difference, and skill training for the rogue. The rogue is flat out awful in this package.

On Skills:

I don't see skill training as being otherwise; my problem is primarily with the overtly broad skill array (though I think training should be more important than it is).

On Sorcerers:

You haven't been building your sorcs right. Cause Fear spam + Heavy Armour, Defender specialization, Shield (spell and item) and the L5 packet version of Mirror Image active made them near invincible one man armies (just better than a 1/100 chance of being hit by a +2 attack bonus mob). My sorc literally didn't take damage once throughout the entire playtest despite being main tank, while repeatedly crushing encounters about singlehandedly with Cause Fear.

Spontaneous casting was better than prepared in 5e as of the Sorcerer playtest packet since spontaneous casting got access to nearly all of the best spells of a limited set anyways, and could spam them all day.

On True Seeing:

Straight up school destroying no/win buttons are bad. A single spell or even a handful should not completely thwart an entire school. No one is going to convince me otherwise; we will never agree. I also do not approve of your solution, as it does not actually address the problem of a single spell hard countering an entire school.

On Stealthy Escape + Master Sneak:

Game breaking may be a bit of an exaggeration, but it's not much of one. It completely circumvents one major limitation of Stealth that keeps it balanced, which is action expenditure; now I can get advantage every round, and my opponent will have difficulty detecting and attacking me, especially given that there's no charging in this game. At the cost of two feats, Stealth has been made massively more powerful. As an aside, this is doubly true if you have an illusionist wizard to provide you with concealment whenever you want it, or you _are_ said wizard (at-will Minor Image baby).

On Illusion/Illusionists:

Again, you seem to believe True Seeing is acceptable game design and a fair and acceptable counter to Illusion as a school. I feel you are wrong.

As for Disguise Self, I'm again uncertain as to whether we're reading the same document. The spell is a massively limited cantrip version of its 3.5 self (frankly, the at-will Minor Image they get with auditory and visual components is vastly more powerful), and it is perfectly consistent with the current design convention of the wizard having a limited set of level 0 spells it can use at-will. It is absurd that it doesn't get Disguise Self as one of these at-will L0s.

[wadledo]

No, it's really not. A 4E rogue can do high damage, and mobility, and skill mastery straight out of the box from level one (as a matter of fact, so can a 3E rogue). A 5E rogue, in the current playtest, can still not do all of that at level five. That's a very clear comparison.

Except, of course, that 5e is not 4e or 3e. So it ends up being apples and oranges.

[noparlpf]

Except, of course, that 5e is not 4e or 3e. So it ends up being apples and oranges.

Except the point isn't that it's not the 4e rogue, the point is that it's not filling its supposed role effectively.

[ThiagoMartell]

Sneak Attack IS the defining ability of the Rogue, though. The fact that he can use it a lot doesn't cheapen it, because he still needs to put effort into getting it off. Maybe he takes pains to position himself for flanking, and is an acrobatic tumbling Rogue. Maybe he attacks from the shadows with a bow and arrow, and is a sneaky archer Rogue. Maybe he turns himself invisible, and is a magical trickster Rogue. Maybe he feints the enemy, and is a useless Rogue. But he doesn't just say "I want to deal +2d6 Sneak Attack to this enemy, make it so!".

Not in 4e, no. In 4e a Rogue basically says "I sneak attack it with X".

[Kurald Galain]

Except, of course, that 5e is not 4e or 3e. So it ends up being apples and oranges.

Huh? You're suggesting that we can't compare 5E to earlier editions, when it's being explicitly marketed as taking the best parts of and being an improvement over all earlier editions? I don't see how that argument makes sense.

The 5E rogue, in the current playtest, doesn't do what it's advertised to do; doesn't do what rogues do in earlier editions; and compares unfavorably to the fighter. That, to me, is a clear design flaw that needs to be remedied in the next playtest.

[Seerow]

Huh? You're suggesting that we can't compare 5E to earlier editions, when it's being explicitly marketed as taking the best parts of and being an improvement over all earlier editions? I don't see how that argument makes sense.

The 5E rogue, in the current playtest, doesn't do what it's advertised to do; doesn't do what rogues do in earlier editions; and compares unfavorably to the fighter. That, to me, is a clear design flaw that needs to be remedied in the next playtest.

On the other hand, right now the rogue is the -only- class in the game that gets meaningful skill scaling as you level. Skill mastery is actually really good in the context of DDN in that it is the only thing that provides meaningful scaling to skills. At first level, it's +2.5 on average, by level 10, your bonus is on average like +7.97. To all 8 of your skills. Consider everyone else has gotten in that time +5 to a single skill (assuming the skill increase with levels haven't changed I haven't had a chance to review that section in depth yet).

Or at least that would be worth something if skills were allowed to be useful.

[Kurald Galain]

Actually, no, if you read page 1 of the maneuvers file, it has separate lists for fighters and rogues.

Yes, but the fighter option that lets you make your own style states that you can pick maneuvers from the complete list. To me, this suggests that a fighter is allowed to take rogue maneuvers (although that may not have been what WOTC intended).

-Yes, I'd prefer a more condensed skill system, but you should see skill training as a small bonus, your attribute is what's really important.

Unfortunately your attribute is also a small bonus.

(edit) Hm, I just noticed that the fighter has a dead level at 5 and 7, where he gains literally nothing but HP. Even his attack bonus and expertise dice don't change. The rogue likewise has a dead level at 5.

[noparlpf]

-Yes, I'd prefer a more condensed skill system, but you should see skill training as a small bonus, your attribute is what's really important.

Oh, so I should be able to, say, weave a tapestry perfectly without actually studying the trade at all, because my Int bonus is high enough for a Craft check? That would explain why school is a waste of time, my Knowledge skills were already high enough from my Int that I didn't need to actually learn anything.
I think it's the other way around. Your training (skill points) should outweigh your base ability (stats).

[Draz74]

Not only do the Rogue and the Fighter have separate lists to pick their maneuvers from (which means the Fighter can't pick Skill Mastery), but the Rogue also gets Skill Mastery as a bonus Maneuver at Level 1. As in, in addition to whatever Maneuver he actually chooses.

So at Level 4, your Rogue could have Sneak Attack, Tumbling Dodge, and Skill Mastery, which covers the three "bases" Kurald is talking about.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to claim that the current Rogue isn't weak. But I'm saying it's not as weak as it seems if you missed some details in the rules.

If Level 5 is the standard we're going to judge by, let's see how the Fighter and the Rogue compare:
Fighter has ~12 more HP, +1 better attack rolls, and better weapon selection. Also better armor selection, which will only matter if he doesn't focus on Dex, making him slightly less MAD than the Rogue (but at the cost of being able to do Dexterous things like sneaking). He has 2d6 Expertise and knows 4 Maneuvers, including Deadly Strike.
Rogue has 4 more Trained skills, as well as Thieves' Tools Proficiency (which seems to be the 5e equivalent of Trapfinding). He likewise has 2d6 Expertise dice, and he knows 3 Maneuvers, including Skill Mastery. We might as well assume he has Sneak Attack as well, which is almost the same as Deadly Strike. (In practice, you should always be able to qualify for Sneak Attack ... same as 3e and 4e.)

So, basically ... yeah, the Rogue is significantly weaker in combat than the Fighter. But this is more because of the ~12 more HP, +1 attack, ~+2 damage (if he goes for a big weapon), and lesser MAD than it is because of Expertise or Maneuvers. 4 combat maneuvers vs. 2 is significant, but not necessarily unreasonable. (And I find the Maneuvers lists roughly comparable overall.)
And the Rogue, meanwhile, is unquestionably more useful and reliable outside of combat.

I'd prefer a little more combat/noncombat parity between classes, myself. But this actually seems to be pretty much in line with what some of the WotC designers have stated is their intent for the Fighter and Rogue.

EDIT: of course at Level 6 the Fighter jumps ahead of the Rogue in combat by whole new leaps and bounds ...

[AgentPaper]

What if, instead of providing a bonus, you could only increase your skill in something up to a maximum of your attribute bonus for that skill?