Are 5e monsters boring bags of HPs? PROVE IT!

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'll argue the bolded bit. Generally, if you train at something, you'd be proficient in it. It's not ALWAYS going to be the case, but correlation is strong between the two.

That being said, the meat of your post is spot-on.

Proficiency can be a result of training. But it isn't always--it could be the result of natural talent. I'm a teacher. I've met some students who just naturally grasp certain parts of the material as if they've always known it. They're not actually super-humanly intelligent--one person in particular was smart, but only about INT 12. They struggled with most of the class. But series and parallel circuits? Those were trivial for them. You could say that they were proficient in series and parallel circuits without any training.

And sometimes, training doesn't create proficiency. I know another kid who has been playing baseball for years. It's his life. But he's only middling at it. He'll never be great.

[JNAProductions]

Proficiency can be a result of training. But it isn't always--it could be the result of natural talent. I'm a teacher. I've met some students who just naturally grasp certain parts of the material as if they've always known it. They're not actually super-humanly intelligent--one person in particular was smart, but only about INT 12. They struggled with most of the class. But series and parallel circuits? Those were trivial for them. You could say that they were proficient in series and parallel circuits without any training.

And sometimes, training doesn't create proficiency. I know another kid who has been playing baseball for years. It's his life. But he's only middling at it. He'll never be great.

I guess, to my view, the following would be most common:

Untrained, not proficient. (Normal.)
Untrained, proficient. (Talented.)
Trained, proficient. (Trained.)

With Trained, not proficient being relatively rare. Does that make sense?

[PhoenixPhyre]

I guess, to my view, the following would be most common:

Untrained, not proficient. (Normal.)
Untrained, proficient. (Talented.)
Trained, proficient. (Trained.)

With Trained, not proficient being relatively rare. Does that make sense?

Yes. But that's a different sort of "trained" than the 3e definition (has put 1+ skill points into it and can thus do <thing>). And that was my point. Adventurers are trained (in the 3e sense) in every skill. Otherwise they'd be dead adventurers. Rolling dice is only for things where the outcome is a) uncertain and b) interestingly so. The only official remnant (that I know of) is the need for thieves' tool proficiency to use them to pick a lock. In that case, yeah. Proficient = trained (taught). In most other cases? Not so much.

This is why not all wizards are proficient in Arcana. And not all Clerics in Religion. Because those represent more than just "knows about spells" or "knows about gods." And not all fighters have athletics proficiency. Or rogues acrobatics. Etc.

Note: I'm not trying to argue. Just expressing a point that bugs me when people bring their 3e notions into 5e and then complain that it doesn't work right. Right. Using a fork as a shovel doesn't work. Because it's a fork, not a shovel. Use a shovel for that.

[JNAProductions]

Yes. But that's a different sort of "trained" than the 3e definition (has put 1+ skill points into it and can thus do <thing>). And that was my point. Adventurers are trained (in the 3e sense) in every skill. Otherwise they'd be dead adventurers. Rolling dice is only for things where the outcome is a) uncertain and b) interestingly so. The only official remnant (that I know of) is the need for thieves' tool proficiency to use them to pick a lock. In that case, yeah. Proficient = trained (taught). In most other cases? Not so much.

This is why not all wizards are proficient in Arcana. And not all Clerics in Religion. Because those represent more than just "knows about spells" or "knows about gods." And not all fighters have athletics proficiency. Or rogues acrobatics. Etc.

Note: I'm not trying to argue. Just expressing a point that bugs me when people bring their 3e notions into 5e and then complain that it doesn't work right. Right. Using a fork as a shovel doesn't work. Because it's a fork, not a shovel. Use a shovel for that.

Oh, yeah, I definitely agree that everyone is trained by the 3E definition. Anyone can attempt anything, some people are just more likely to succeed.

Well, glad we could have a nice, civil discussion. :)

[PhoenixPhyre]

Well, glad we could have a nice, civil discussion. :)

I feel the same! (message extended to meet character count requirements)

[Rhedyn]

Eh it depends on the DM if every monster can do every skill.

You can say it's very hard (25) for non proficient people to do easy things with a skill.

You could also say flipping a castle with Athletics (more than base carry capacity check) is very easy.

With that variance skills are basically DM homebrew abilities not things monsters can just do.

[JNAProductions]

Eh it depends on the DM if every monster can do every skill.

You can say it's very hard (25) for non proficient people to do easy things with a skill.

You could also say flipping a castle with Athletics (more than base carry capacity check) is very easy.

With that variance skills are basically DM homebrew abilities not things monsters can just do.

So what you're saying is that bad DMs can make bad calls?

I won't lie and say that every DM is going to make good calls on skills every time, but in general, playing with a competent DM means that even a paltry +0 in any given skill lets you do basic tasks.

Hell, even with just what's written, a 5E Bandit can ride better than a PF Bandit, can grapple many times better, can fight just as well... They're just kinda more interesting in a fight, since they have full access to the combat system, instead of being effectively locked out from any interesting maneuvers.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Eh it depends on the DM if every monster can do every skill.

You can say it's very hard (25) for non proficient people to do easy things with a skill.

You could also say flipping a castle with Athletics (more than base carry capacity check) is very easy.

With that variance skills are basically DM homebrew abilities not things monsters can just do.

...No. Just no.

Ok, in principle a DM does have that power. But at that point, a RL table-flip is probably the right option. You're getting quite absurd here. Unlike 3e, where there were explicit rules prohibiting creatures without training in X (or feat Y) from doing the associated things, the default in 5e is that anyone can attempt anything. Remember--there are no skill checks. There are simply ability checks which you may be able to add proficiency. That's what you're missing. You don't do things with skills--you do them with ability checks. To which being proficient can help.

The only exception by default (that I'm aware of) is picking locks with thieves tools, which require a tool proficiency (not a skill--it's not sleight of hand to pick a lock!)

[Unoriginal]

So what you're saying is that bad DMs can make bad calls?

I won't lie and say that every DM is going to make good calls on skills every time, but in general, playing with a competent DM means that even a paltry +0 in any given skill lets you do basic tasks.

Hell, even with just what's written, a 5E Bandit can ride better than a PF Bandit, can grapple many times better, can fight just as well... They're just kinda more interesting in a fight, since they have full access to the combat system, instead of being effectively locked out from any interesting maneuvers.

...No. Just no.

Ok, in principle a DM does have that power. But at that point, a RL table-flip is probably the right option. You're getting quite absurd here. Unlike 3e, where there were explicit rules prohibiting creatures without training in X (or feat Y) from doing the associated things, the default in 5e is that anyone can attempt anything. Remember--there are no skill checks. There are simply ability checks which you may be able to add proficiency. That's what you're missing. You don't do things with skills--you do them with ability checks. To which being proficient can help.

The only exception by default (that I'm aware of) is picking locks with thieves tools, which require a tool proficiency (not a skill--it's not sleight of hand to pick a lock!)

This.

If the argument is "5e monsters are boring if the DM **** it up", well...

That's kind of what we've been saying about that Pit Fiend fight.

[Rhedyn]

So what you're saying is that bad DMs can make bad calls?

I won't lie and say that every DM is going to make good calls on skills every time, but in general, playing with a competent DM means that even a paltry +0 in any given skill lets you do basic tasks.

Hell, even with just what's written, a 5E Bandit can ride better than a PF Bandit, can grapple many times better, can fight just as well... They're just kinda more interesting in a fight, since they have full access to the combat system, instead of being effectively locked out from any interesting maneuvers.

DMs don't have to make calls if there were actual rules.

5e can't even claim to have skill guidelines.

Your vision of 5e skills is not the rules as written. The DM feels a difficulty and can assign a DC. There is nothing to help a DM evaluate that difficulty beyond store campaigns.

And that kind of thing directly effects monster abilities in 5e. All use of skills is just DM homebrewing abilities onto monsters. Per the rules, they are just sacks of HP.

(But how is Savage Worlds all that different? For the 4 of you who would ask that. I would say that there are more specific rules and tables when needed and that the standard DC of 4 takes out the guesswork. I rarely use the difficulty GM mod to DCs and if I'm unsure if the action should be feasible with the skill, I'll ask the table before I let a DC 4 be all you need to do that. So far it's working. I don't feel that a standard DC works in 5e math even as a houserule. You must make that difficulty decision and even then skills are too swingy with the d20)

[Vaz]

With regards to 3.5e, most tasks were DC10 to DC20. You could take 10 if you could time to complete something, and Take 20 if there were no complications as a result of failure for 20 times the time invested. The NPC array maxed with a 13, so at most +1 to a stat, but if you had a skill at something, you may have had 4 ranks at a skill: say climb. This gave you the ability to ascend a DC19 climb without really trying, provided you were slow and steady, and had a Climbing Kit, and someone nearby to pass an aid another bonus to you: make it a Masterwork kit, et voila, DC21, which is a rough unever wall with narrow handholds. Make it DC25 for a more difficult climb, such as a bear brick wall. Becoming stronger, to become a less typical individual, and a more dedicated climber, to take the athletic feat for +2, put some time into training strength, and perhaps have gained a level for +1 rank, and a 2nd level commoner can easily climb a DC25 rough rock face, or an overhang.

Give them enough time, and any commoner investing a modicum of time into it, ensuring they have proper safety to catch them if they fall, without ranks, but investing money in the correct equipment, any commoner can do the same thing.

Meanwhile, check the DCs for profession sailor: in light surf, any fully crewed ship can be navigated in light surf without foundering with ease (DC10) : it would take an incompetent sailor (no ranks, 9 or lower wisdom) to mess that up. However, it wpuld take a fantastic captain to prevent foundering in a dire gale with a less than quarter watch: DC43 would require a 20th level character +23, with max wisdom (lets make them venerable for max salty sea dog appearance too) another +8 there, and we still need another +11 from somewhere to make up the rest. Another +5 is possible from the combination of a +6 item, +5 tome. +6 can be from a Greatship bonus. In anything but the most seaworthy boat, statistically, even the greatest non caster can only manage 20 minutes or less in a dire gale before foundering.

Admittedly, a Cleric with Divine Insight, or Guidance of the Avatar can withstand (theoretically) nearly 18 hours of that if they prepare all of their spells of 2nd or higher as either of those, but no cleric is doing that without specific knowledge there may be 18 hours of minute by minute skill checks in a dire gale. Either that or item familiars, but most recognise then as fairly broken.

If an Incantatrix wanted to Persist, and Extend a casting a 9th level spell, it would require a DC 69 (giggity). Max typical check bonus at 20th level is +38, without some specific magic items (or item familiars: and even that is only going to give you a +61 - I've never met a DM who allows an Incantatrix to take 10 to apply to that so that still has a greater than 1/3 chance of failure, let alone take 20.

I'm not angling anything here, other than actually putting example numbers down from the 3.5 side of things.

[Rhedyn]

That's kind of what we've been saying about that Pit Fiend fight.

If you mean espousing ignorance about a system you supposively like then I agree with you.

I've been ignoring these quips because they are coming from the person's gut, rather than anything established in reason, fact, or the very rules of the system you clearly understand very poorly. I'm embarrassed for you.

[JNAProductions]

The guidelines are pretty basic.

Very Easy is DC 5, Easy DC 10, Moderate DC 15, Hard DC 20, Very Hard DC 25, and Nearly Impossible DC 30.

Vague guidelines, to be sure, and I'll definitely agree that what constitutes what is going to vary from table to table.

However, your example? Basic tasks being DC 25 for non-proficient people? Flies in the face of those guidelines. Assuming a basic task is, say, cook an adequate meal on a campfire, for someone who has no proficiency in chef's tools or anything like that, the MOST you could reasonably peg it is DC 15, for Moderate. Most likely, it'd be low enough that a DM wouldn't bother having you roll, especially since failure or success is just boring. (You eat a tasty meal versus you eat burnt food.) The other example, flipping a castle being DC 5? Is patently ridiculous. Flipping a castle is something you could attempt in real life-and guess what? It's not just Nearly Impossible, it's quite literally TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE. So, in addition to it being a straight Strength check (not an Athletics check) the minimum DC if you pay attention to the guidelines would be 31-higher than Nearly Impossible. More likely 35, and quite honestly, at my table, it'd just get a flat "No, you can't do that."

Furthermore, DMs are people. DMs are, indeed, fallible, but guess what? You can TALK TO THEM. You could say "Hey, I feel like this DC is too high/too low for what makes sense," and if you make a good argument for why that is, they'll probably change it.

If you mean espousing ignorance about a system you supposively like then I agree with you.

I've been ignoring these quips because they are coming from the person's gut, rather than anything established in reason, fact, or the very rules of the system you clearly understand very poorly. I'm embarrassed for you.

What false assumptions have they made about 3.P? Can you cite any actual examples?

In addition, we're talking about the fight YOU HAD in 5th edition, as being made boring by the DM. The Pit Fiend, a being millennia old and smarter than any mortal man, was played with all the tactics of an ogre.

[Rhedyn]

The guidelines are pretty basic.

Very Easy is DC 5, Easy DC 10, Moderate DC 15, Hard DC 20, Very Hard DC 25, and Nearly Impossible DC 30.

Vague guidelines, to be sure, and I'll definitely agree that what constitutes what is going to vary from table to table.

However, your example? Basic tasks being DC 25 for non-proficient people? Flies in the face of those guidelines. Assuming a basic task is, say, cook an adequate meal on a campfire, for someone who has no proficiency in chef's tools or anything like that, the MOST you could reasonably peg it is DC 15, for Moderate. Most likely, it'd be low enough that a DM wouldn't bother having you roll, especially since failure or success is just boring. (You eat a tasty meal versus you eat burnt food.) The other example, flipping a castle being DC 5? Is patently ridiculous. Flipping a castle is something you could attempt in real life-and guess what? It's not just Nearly Impossible, it's quite literally TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE. So, in addition to it being a straight Strength check (not an Athletics check) the minimum DC if you pay attention to the guidelines would be 31-higher than Nearly Impossible. More likely 35, and quite honestly, at my table, it'd just get a flat "No, you can't do that."

Furthermore, DMs are people. DMs are, indeed, fallible, but guess what? You can TALK TO THEM. You could say "Hey, I feel like this DC is too high/too low for what makes sense," and if you make a good argument for why that is, they'll probably change it.

Nothing in the rules prevents or even inclines a DM not to make the difficulty DCs personal to the person making the check. Easy could be easy for them.

You can also do the difficulties holistically like I think most people do.

Sure it's basic, but it's not rules.

[Unoriginal]

DMs don't have to make calls if there were actual rules.

Yes they have. And there is actual rules.

5e can't even claim to have skill guidelines.

It has Ability guidelines. Because they're Ability checks.

Your vision of 5e skills is not the rules as written. The DM feels a difficulty and can assign a DC. There is nothing to help a DM evaluate that difficulty beyond store campaigns.

You just used "a DM decides an easy task is very difficult". How did you know it was easy?

And that kind of thing directly effects monster abilities in 5e. All use of skills is just DM homebrewing abilities onto monsters. Per the rules, they are just sacks of HP.

Ahahahaa whoa.

"The rules saying everyone can try X means that the DM is homebrewing if any NPC tries X".

Folks, I think it's clear this discussion can go nowhere.

[JNAProductions]

Folks, I think it's clear this discussion can go nowhere.

We can try. Also, just to make this post have actual substance, can I get a show of hands here? Who likes 5E, and who likes 3.P?

For me personally, I like both. 5E is much simpler to run, much more intuitive, has much tighter balance, and is, in my opinion, the better designed system. But 3.P has a million and one wacky things you can do with it, and while it's horrifically unbalanced for a PUG, it's a lot of fun to stretch the system and play in zany games.

[Rhedyn]

What false assumptions have they made about 3.P? Can you cite any actual examples?

In addition, we're talking about the fight YOU HAD in 5th edition, as being made boring by the DM. The Pit Fiend, a being millennia old and smarter than any mortal man, was played with all the tactics of an ogre.

Your failure of literacy in thinking such a comment was about 3.P at all, is only matched by your bafflement at a party defeating an encounter that was only meant to drain the resources that it did, as outlined by the estimates the system gives.

You shouldn't call other people's DMs stupid because an encounter went exactly as the system intends.

[Unoriginal]

Assuming a basic task is, say, cook an adequate meal on a campfire, for someone who has no proficiency in chef's tools or anything like that, the MOST you could reasonably peg it is DC 15, for Moderate.

The Xanathar's lists DC 15 as "preparing a gourmet meal".

What false assumptions have they made about 3.P? Can you cite any actual examples?

Rhedyn is claiming that I don't know anything about 5e.

[JNAProductions]

Your failure of literacy in thinking such a comment was about 3.P at all, is only matched by your bafflement at a party defeating an encounter that was only meant to drain the resources that it did, as outlined by the estimates the system gives.

You shouldn't call other people's DMs stupid because an encounter went exactly as the system intends.

Perhaps you should write more clearly, then? After all, it takes at least two people to communicate something.

And, unless you're reporting what happened wrong, the Pit Fiend WAS played stupidly. We've outlined a lot of ways it could've fought better. I'm not calling your DM stupid-I'm saying that, for one specific encounter, they played a monster stupidly. We all have our dumb moments-I have them, you have them, your DM has them.

The Xanathar's lists DC 15 as "preparing a gourmet meal". .

Thanks for bringing that up, Unoriginal. I don't own Xanathar's yet, so I didn't know that.

And, if anyone wants to claim that's not valid because it's in a splat, I should like to point out that multiple entire skills are only available via splats in 3.P, such as Autohypnosis or Truenaming.

[Unoriginal]

Thanks for bringing that up, Unoriginal.

You're welcome.

Who likes 5E, and who likes 3.P?

I like 5e.

3.PF is playable and DMable, but I sure as hell won't enjoy it.


On other subjects, I thought about starting a thread with for premise "take a 5e monster, modify at maximum 2-3 things on their statblock, see how different they turn out, and add fluff to explain the difference." You think it could be interesting?

So far I've imagined an Ettin in plate armor, with a shield. The idea would be an Ettin who had been captured by Fire Giants and since is used as guardian for their fortress, with the adequate equipment, Ettins being good at spotting things and staying alert at all time.

[Vaz]

The guidelines are pretty basic.

Very Easy is DC 5, Easy DC 10, Moderate DC 15, Hard DC 20, Very Hard DC 25, and Nearly Impossible DC 30.

Vague guidelines, to be sure, and I'll definitely agree that what constitutes what is going to vary from table to table.

However, your example? Basic tasks being DC 25 for non-proficient people? Flies in the face of those guidelines. Assuming a basic task is, say, cook an adequate meal on a campfire, for someone who has no proficiency in chef's tools or anything like that, the MOST you could reasonably peg it is DC 15, for Moderate. Most likely, it'd be low enough that a DM wouldn't bother having you roll, especially since failure or success is just boring. (You eat a tasty meal versus you eat burnt food.) The other example, flipping a castle being DC 5? Is patently ridiculous. Flipping a castle is something you could attempt in real life-and guess what? It's not just Nearly Impossible, it's quite literally TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE. So, in addition to it being a straight Strength check (not an Athletics check) the minimum DC if you pay attention to the guidelines would be 31-higher than Nearly Impossible. More likely 35, and quite honestly, at my table, it'd just get a flat "No, you can't do that."

Furthermore, DMs are people. DMs are, indeed, fallible, but guess what? You can TALK TO THEM. You could say "Hey, I feel like this DC is too high/too low for what makes sense," and if you make a good argument for why that is, they'll probably change it.



What false assumptions have they made about 3.P? Can you cite any actual examples?

In addition, we're talking about the fight YOU HAD in 5th edition, as being made boring by the DM. The Pit Fiend, a being millennia old and smarter than any mortal man, was played with all the tactics of an ogre.

Eh, no. Basic tasks are DC10. It should take special circumstance for someone to not do something basic. Starting a campfire is something pretty much anyone can do with average common sense. Give it enough time, and anyone can stsrt a campfire. Make it inclement weather, and someone who is a bit more outdoorsy will be needed.

DC25 should be possible for everyone, but require 20 times the time it normally takes if unskilled, or some pretty decent skill investment.

The problem with the 3.5 skill system isn't in how appropriate it is, but given the meta, how prevalent some skills are in comparison to others (such as how Perception, Investigation and Insight are often better than taking Medicine, or Acrobatics on a none dex character in 5e).

The DC rolls as i've understood it were less meant to be flat, but more floating in 5e. Hard = 15 on the roll, easy = 5 on the roll, Near Impossible = 20 on the roll.

[Unoriginal]

Keep in mind that 5e has the "auto-success if something is possible, you have enough time to try as much as you want, and there is no consequence to failure" rule.

Also, interesting since you talked about sailing in 3.X earlier, Vaz, the Xanathar's give "navigate rough terrain or water" as an exemple of DC 10.

[PhoenixPhyre]

For someone with no proficiency and a 0 modifier:

DC : % chance to succeed
5 : 80%
10: 55%
15: 30%
20: 5%
25+ : 0%

For a beginning adventurer with either proficiency or an OK ability score (+2):

DC : % chance to succeed
5 : 90% -- Very Easy
10: 65% -- Easy
15: 40% -- Medium
20: 15% -- Hard
25+ : 0% -- Very Hard/Impossible (these become possible at +5 bonus, so either exceptional ability scores or high proficiency or middling of both)

So you can calibrate all tasks (and implicitly should) calibrate all skill-related ability checks to a beginning adventurer. For nice round numbers, take someone with proficiency and an ok score (+4) as your baseline:

DC : % chance to succeed
5 : 100%
10: 75%
15: 50%
20: 25%
25+ : 0%

That means that DMs can judge tasks by asking how frequently an untrained commoner should succeed when under pressure. Note that this is after you decide whether a task should automatically succeed (DC Yes) or automatically fail (DC No). Flipping a castle is DC No. The task makes no sense--castles aren't rigid structures that can be rotated like that. Cooking a basic meal is DC Yes--commoners succeed the ultra-vast majority of the time and failure is not interesting.

All of this is in the DMG--I've just rephrased it.

[Chaosmancer]

Nothing in the rules prevents or even inclines a DM not to make the difficulty DCs personal to the person making the check. Easy could be easy for them.

You can also do the difficulties holistically like I think most people do.

Sure it's basic, but it's not rules.

This post confuses me.

You said there are no guidelines to skill DCs in 5e. Then someone posted the skill guidelines from the 5e dmg.

And now you're saying nothing prevents the DM from throwing the rules out the window and just winging it?

Sure "Is this easy or is this hard" is a vague standard but shockingly it works very well. And, it has absolutely nothing to do with the monsters ability to try a task.

I mean, which point do you wish to defend? Do you want to argue that 5e DMs can't be bound by RAW in the same way 3.5 DMs were bound by RAW? I mean, if you're going to ignore what the book tells you I don't think it matters which book we are talking about. Are you arguing that a DM can say "the dc for moving this boulder is lower the better trained the character is" so a proficiency +2 recieves a DC of 20 while a proficiency of +5 receives a DC of 10? I mean, I'll refer you back to any one can choose to ignore the rules, but double down on the fact that bounded accuracy exists to combat the very existence of sliding DCs based on character level. Or are we actually talking about a monsters capacity to attempt a task? Cause then, to reiterate, everyone is already "trained" per the old standards. Almost no abilities are completely gated off and your bear is perfectly allowed to roll Inteligence (history) on the iconography of the royal kingdom. With a -4 they are likely to fail, but per the rules they can try it. But, the bear knowing the royal crest probably doesn't change anything about how it fights the party cause they charged into its den looking for shiniez.

I'll never disagree with giving more monsters proficiency and/or expertise in skills (notice goblins have expertise in stealth, little rogues), but just because we could use more +2 bonuses doesn't mean "monsters dont have skills". They competely do and they work exactly like player skills do.

[Rhedyn]

This post confuses me.

You said there are no guidelines to skill DCs in 5e. Then someone posted the skill guidelines from the 5e dmg.

And now you're saying nothing prevents the DM from throwing the rules out the window and just winging it?

Sure "Is this easy or is this hard" is a vague standard but shockingly it works very well. And, it has absolutely nothing to do with the monsters ability to try a task.

I mean, which point do you wish to defend? Do you want to argue that 5e DMs can't be bound by RAW in the same way 3.5 DMs were bound by RAW? I mean, if you're going to ignore what the book tells you I don't think it matters which book we are talking about. Are you arguing that a DM can say "the dc for moving this boulder is lower the better trained the character is" so a proficiency +2 recieves a DC of 20 while a proficiency of +5 receives a DC of 10? I mean, I'll refer you back to any one can choose to ignore the rules, but double down on the fact that bounded accuracy exists to combat the very existence of sliding DCs based on character level. Or are we actually talking about a monsters capacity to attempt a task? Cause then, to reiterate, everyone is already "trained" per the old standards. Almost no abilities are completely gated off and your bear is perfectly allowed to roll Inteligence (history) on the iconography of the royal kingdom. With a -4 they are likely to fail, but per the rules they can try it. But, the bear knowing the royal crest probably doesn't change anything about how it fights the party cause they charged into its den looking for shiniez.

I'll never disagree with giving more monsters proficiency and/or expertise in skills (notice goblins have expertise in stealth, little rogues), but just because we could use more +2 bonuses doesn't mean "monsters dont have skills". They competely do and they work exactly like player skills do.

Oh I don't think most DMs do sliding DCs, but the RAW of "DM determines DC with gut" totally justifies a DM thinking a strong fighter can easily tear down a door, while a wizard would find it very hard.

But yeah throw that out. Say DM keeps DCs the same for everyone. That means any knowledge that a bear shouldn't know must be 17+. Or perhaps bears shouldn't be able to make those checks? Perhaps such things are harder for bears?

IDK, it's 5e skill rules. I won't concede that any part of those rules are good or that the 5e method is anything but terrible. A DM can write good skill rules for 5e, but that is the DM doing that, not 5e.

[Marcloure]

One of the things I most dislike in 5e is the lack of effects creativity. Look at the Ancient Red Dragon. It has 5 different actions (not including multiattack), but 3 of them are just "basic attacks with different numbers". The tail attack could push, the bite could grab, but no, they just... deal damage. Also, for a legendary creature, the dragon doesn't seem so cool to fight. It uses its overpowerful breath once every what? 3 rounds? And the rest is just to attack and attack. I say to throw some aura there, maybe another special attack, and the already said effects to its basic attacks.

I'm currently running my own adaptation of Madness of Gardmore Abbey (4e) to 5e, and I just took all things cool from monsters in 4e and gave it to its 5e version. My orcs push on hit with thrown weapons, and others of them swirl and push back everyone around. The minotaurs have a reaction that let them countercharge anyone who hit them. The dragon auto-recharges and uses its breath when gets bloodied. The wraiths have autodamage aura, and almost every foe gains or loses something while bloodied (below half hit points). Really, I didn't keep any monster as written in the MM.

[GooeyChewie]

Oh I don't think most DMs do sliding DCs, but the RAW of "DM determines DC with gut" totally justifies a DM thinking a strong fighter can easily tear down a door, while a wizard would find it very hard.

I just reread the Difficulty Class section of the DMG (page 238). Nothing in it says to make the determination on a character-by-character basis. RAW, the DM sets the DC based on the task, not the character attempting the task. The ability check will prove easier for the strong fighter not because of a difference in DC, but because the fighter has higher Strength.

No system can cover every possibility, so every system will have some level of DM (or GM) adjudication regarding the difficulty of tasks. You really can't hold that fact up as a weakness on any system. At best a system can give guidelines for how to adjudicate the difficulty of different tasks, which 5E does.

But yeah throw that out. Say DM keeps DCs the same for everyone. That means any knowledge that a bear shouldn't know must be 17+. Or perhaps bears shouldn't be able to make those checks? Perhaps such things are harder for bears?

Such things are harder for bears because they have a -4 modifier to Intelligence. A bear has only a 35% change of making even an easy (DC 10) Intelligence check. Or, if the bear really would have no way of knowing something, the DM can disallow the making of the ability check. Doing so doesn't change the DC for any character which would have some way of knowing something, and it doesn't stop the bear from making other checks which do make sense.

IDK, it's 5e skill rules. I won't concede that any part of those rules are good or that the 5e method is anything but terrible. A DM can write good skill rules for 5e, but that is the DM doing that, not 5e.

It sounds to me like nothing anybody could say would change your mind, so can we leave it at 5E's ability check system seems to work better for others than it does for you?

[War_lord]

You know, I'm really doubting the value of engaging with Rhedyn any further, they seem determined to hate on 5th edition, to the point of inventing "problems" with the skill system that don't actually have any basis in the game's rules. DC is set for the task, not the person making the attempt. You don't have to roll for doing anything that doesn't have a chance of failing, and you don't have to roll for anything you have functionally infinite attempts at.

Preferring 3.5 or PF to 5e is one thing, publicly dumping on 5e for problems it doesn't have is another.

[Rhedyn]

You know, I'm really doubting the value of engaging with Rhedyn any further, they seem determined to hate on 5th edition, to the point of inventing "problems" with the skill system that don't actually have any basis in the game's rules. DC is set for the task, not the person making the attempt. You don't have to roll for doing anything that doesn't have a chance of failing, and you don't have to roll for anything you have functionally infinite attempts at.

Preferring 3.5 or PF to 5e is one thing, publicly dumping on 5e for problems it doesn't have is another.

5e's problem is that it doesn't have skill rules.
"DM gut checks difficulty" and a skill list is just a poor showing.

I'm sorry I had to be the one to burst your bubble. Not everyone thinks this system in fine.

The skill system might as well be "roll nothing. Ask the DM if you can do it" and that would be better than this system. This system is just weird, non-functional, and clunky. Easily worse system of any rpg I've glanced at for skills.

[Chaosmancer]

One of the things I most dislike in 5e is the lack of effects creativity. Look at the Ancient Red Dragon. It has 5 different actions (not including multiattack), but 3 of them are just "basic attacks with different numbers". The tail attack could push, the bite could grab, but no, they just... deal damage. Also, for a legendary creature, the dragon doesn't seem so cool to fight. It uses its overpowerful breath once every what? 3 rounds? And the rest is just to attack and attack. I say to throw some aura there, maybe another special attack, and the already said effects to its basic attacks.

I'm currently running my own adaptation of Madness of Gardmore Abbey (4e) to 5e, and I just took all things cool from monsters in 4e and gave it to its 5e version. My orcs push on hit with thrown weapons, and others of them swirl and push back everyone around. The minotaurs have a reaction that let them countercharge anyone who hit them. The dragon auto-recharges and uses its breath when gets bloodied. The wraiths have autodamage aura, and almost every foe gains or loses something while bloodied (below half hit points). Really, I didn't keep any monster as written in the MM.

See, i both agree and disagree with this.

I agree dragons could have one or two more interesting options. I always use the draconic magic option and if they are facing a powerful enough Dragon I might add some auras or increase their shove distance.

However, at a certain point it gets to be too much. If you've got 4 groups of enemied with 2 or 3 different home brewed tricks each, then it is going to become difficult (for me at least) to keep track of it all.

Though, i think i may take that push back on thrown weapons idea. Maybe not for orcs, but something is gonna use that