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

[Unoriginal]

Why would a thrown weapon push back?

I mean, if it's a giant boulder, why not, but something like an axe or a dagger?

[War_lord]

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

5e has ability check DC rules, a very easy task is DC 5, a moderate task is DC 15, a nearly impossible task is DC 30. Could a DM screw you over by making a check arbitrary difficult just because? Yes, of course they could, but a jerk DM can screw you over in any edition of D&D. The system doesn't have to account for malice on the part of either the DM or the player. If you don't trust your DM why are you playing with that person?

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

There's no bubble. Plenty of people don't like 5th edition for a number of reasons that might be valid to them, that's fine and dandy, they're entitled to play what they like. Then there's people like you who wander over here to trash the game based on deliberate distortions of the rules, that I do have a problem with.

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.

The point of rolling dice in D&D is to adjudicate situations where the outcome of an action is uncertain, you can't even roll the dice until the DM has ruled that your action has a chance of success, but is not certain to succeed. Clunky to me is having written rules for every possible action a character could make, because you can't trust the rules adjudicator to adjudicate. That's an interpersonal conflict at your table, not a problem with 5th edition.

If you can't trust your DM, find a new DM. No amount of rules is going to fix a bad DM.

[Rhedyn]

5e has ability check DC rules, a very easy task is DC 5, a moderate task is DC 15, a nearly impossible task is DC 30. Could a DM screw you over by making a check arbitrary difficult just because? Yes, of course they could, but a jerk DM can screw you over in any edition of D&D. The system doesn't have to account for malice on the part of either the DM or the player. If you don't trust your DM why are you playing with that person?



There's no bubble. Plenty of people don't like 5th edition for a number of reasons that might be valid to them, that's fine and dandy, they're entitled to play what they like. Then there's people like you who wander over here to trash the game based on deliberate distortions of the rules, that I do have a problem with.



The point of rolling dice in D&D is to adjudicate situations where the outcome of an action is uncertain, you can't even roll the dice until the DM has ruled that your action has a chance of success, but is not certain to succeed. Clunky to me is having written rules for every possible action a character could make, because you can't trust the rules adjudicator to adjudicate. That's an interpersonal conflict at your table, not a problem with 5th edition.

If you can't trust your DM, find a new DM. No amount of rules is going to fix a bad DM.

See you are confused. It's not "what if my DM is bad" it's "what system actually helps my DM run games?"

For example I said that a better system would be a player asking if the they can do something with a skill and the DM just saying yes or no.

"I'm proficient in Athletics, can I break the door?" DM: Sure
"Could I flip the house over?" DM: No

"I'm a bear, can I make a lock picking check?" DM: no

"I'm a weaker than average untrained peasant, can I wrestle this large grizzly bear?" DM: no

"I'm am Conan, master of the Savage lands, champion of athletes, can I wrestle a T-Rex" DM: sure


So no, it's not about "trusting the DM", an even lighter rules system would feel better as a player, and work better with monsters and combat. It would also make monsters more interesting because they would be able to do more things than what they actually can do with the crap shoot that is the d20. 5e adds a meaningless dice roll that just succeeds to frustrate DMs that want to be fair and consistent with the DCs, which ends up being a lot of work.

[War_lord]

See you are confused. It's not "what if my DM is bad" it's "what system actually helps my DM run games?"

For example I said that a better system would be a player asking if the they can do something with a skill and the DM just saying yes or no.

That's a already part of the rules.

"I'm proficient in Athletics, can I break the door?" DM: Sure

And then you roll to see if you do actually break to the door down, that's how D&D has always worked.

"Could I flip the house over?" DM: No

That's how it works in 5th edition.

"I'm a bear, can I make a lock picking check?" DM: no

That's how it works in 5e.

"I'm a weaker than average untrained peasant, can I wrestle this large grizzly bear?" DM: no

Athletics vs the Brown Bear's Strength. A DM shouldn't say no unless something is actually impossible.

"I'm am Conan, master of the Savage lands, champion of athletes, can I wrestle a T-Rex" DM: sure

It's a huge creature. If you're going to troll at least pretend you know the basic rules for grappling.

So no, it's not about "trusting the DM", an even lighter rules system would feel better as a player, and work better with monsters and combat. It would also make monsters more interesting because they would be able to do more things than what they actually can do with the crap shoot that is the d20. 5e adds a meaningless dice roll that just succeeds to frustrate DMs that want to be fair and consistent with the DCs, which ends up being a lot of work.

So the problem with 5e is that you roll a d20 to determine success, which introduces a random element... you know that's every edition of D&D and every D&D derivative (such as your beloved Spreadsheetfinder) right?

[Knaight]

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

It's an established mechanic that has worked fine for decades.

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

You don't say. The notion that you've burst any bubbles here is ludicrous - the skill rules have been the subject of multiple several year long forum arguments here, but somehow we're supposed to not have noticed this and just assumed they work for everyone.

And if we're making the argument that not everyone liking a system means it's bad, well, I find Savage Worlds thoroughly dull and uninteresting, and have a long list of generic and semi-generic systems that I'd prefer over it for literally every use case. That doesn't mean that Savage Worlds is a bad system.

See you are confused. It's not "what if my DM is bad" it's "what system actually helps my DM run games?"

So no, it's not about "trusting the DM", an even lighter rules system would feel better as a player, and work better with monsters and combat. It would also make monsters more interesting because they would be able to do more things than what they actually can do with the crap shoot that is the d20. 5e adds a meaningless dice roll that just succeeds to frustrate DMs that want to be fair and consistent with the DCs, which ends up being a lot of work.

A list of skills plus a gut check helps a lot of people. You've also jumped to a completely different criticism at this point, which is the way the d20 distribution interacts with the DCs and skill bonuses.

That argument I'd agree with - the system was designed around combat, which involves a lot of rolls and thus mitigates the swinginess of one roll, and it can get weird around skills as a result. This means absolutely nothing about the GM gut check approach, and conflating the two is dishonest.

[Rhedyn]

It's an established mechanic that has worked fine for decades.


You don't say. The notion that you've burst any bubbles here is ludicrous - the skill rules have been the subject of multiple several year long forum arguments here, but somehow we're supposed to not have noticed this and just assumed they work for everyone.

And if we're making the argument that not everyone liking a system means it's bad, well, I find Savage Worlds thoroughly dull and uninteresting, and have a long list of generic and semi-generic systems that I'd prefer over it for literally every use case. That doesn't mean that Savage Worlds is a bad system.


A list of skills plus a gut check helps a lot of people. You've also jumped to a completely different criticism at this point, which is the way the d20 distribution interacts with the DCs and skill bonuses.

That argument I'd agree with - the system was designed around combat, which involves a lot of rolls and thus mitigates the swinginess of one roll, and it can get weird around skills as a result. This means absolutely nothing about the GM gut check approach, and conflating the two is dishonest.

The d20 can work well. But you need rules.

I was just offering an example of a system that I thought would be better than the current one. Because if you are going to half-ass the d20 mechanic, you might as well not have it.

[Rhedyn]

That's a already part of the rules.



And then you roll to see if you do actually break to the door down, that's how D&D has always worked.



That's how it works in 5th edition.



That's how it works in 5e.



Athletics vs the Brown Bear's Strength. A DM shouldn't say no unless something is actually impossible.



It's a huge creature. If you're going to troll at least pretend you know the basic rules for grappling.




So the problem with 5e is that you roll a d20 to determine success, which introduces a random element... you know that's every edition of D&D and every D&D derivative (such as your beloved Spreadsheetfinder) right?

1. You point out how some things could work the same.

2. You think my deviation from the base rules wasn't intentional for grapple.

3. You missed my point. The randomness of the d20 is bad when you lack a skill system. Tear down the illusion and just make it obvious that it's the DM deciding everything and that your roll doesn't matter (because it doesn't matter). Also the skill contest rules are bad too in 5e, so those might as well be DM Fiat too.

[War_lord]

You missed my point. The randomness of the d20 is bad when you lack a skill system. Tear down the illusion and just make it obvious that it's the DM deciding everything and that your roll doesn't matter (because it doesn't matter). Also the skill contest rules are bad too in 5e, so those might as well be DM Fiat too.

5e has a skill system, you're either proficient, gaining a proficiency bonus, or you're not. The DM's guide gives instruction for setting the DC for a given task. It's not rocket science.

It's bad to you because you think your DM is going to screw up the game if he or she is not constrained every step of the way by pages and pages of extraneous rulings. That's a problem with you.

EDIT: In fact, as a 5e DM I can tell you, having simple ground rules for setting a DC on the fly benefits me far more then being expected to remember what the designer dictates the DC for picking a lock, upside down, in a thunderstorm, while a toy monkey bashes its cymbals and an Imp tickles my bare feet is.

[Rhedyn]

5e has a skill system, you're either proficient, gaining a proficiency bonus, or you're not. The DM's guide gives instruction for setting the DC for a given task. It's not rocket science.

It's bad to you because you think your DM is going to screw up the game if he or she is not constrained every step of the way by pages and pages of extraneous rulings. That's a problem with you.

EDIT: In fact, as a 5e DM I can tell you, having simple ground rules for setting a DC on the fly benefits me far more then being expected to remember what the designer dictates the DC for picking a lock, upside down, in a thunderstorm, while a toy monkey bashes its cymbals and an Imp tickles my bare feet is.

well you aren't reading my post anymore. So no need to respond to this.

[JNAProductions]

1. You point out how some things could work the same.

2. You think my deviation from the base rules wasn't intentional for grapple.

3. You missed my point. The randomness of the d20 is bad when you lack a skill system. Tear down the illusion and just make it obvious that it's the DM deciding everything and that your roll doesn't matter (because it doesn't matter). Also the skill contest rules are bad too in 5e, so those might as well be DM Fiat too.

The d20 is bad for skills PERIOD. Not just in 5E, but in 3.5 as well. I'd argue it's better in 5E, since you can't "fall off" the skill system.

In PF or 3rd edition, by level 5, you can be rocking +19 (+8 ranks, +4 stat, +3 skill focus, +4 magic item of competency), which means that literally ANYTHING that challenges the expert? Joe Schmoe (with his +0, from stat and no ranks) cannot possibly succeed on. DC 20 means the expert cannot ever fail, while DC 21 means Joe Schmoe cannot ever succeed.

In 5th edition, the highest consistent bonus you can get is +17, as compared to -1. DC 19 is possible for an expert to fail (unless said expert has Reliable Talent) and possible for someone bad in that stat to succeed. Which means that you can't really "fall off" the skill system, like you can in 3.P.

Now, some people LIKE having massive numbers. Some people enjoy the faster sense of progression 3.P gives. And that's fine-but don't pretend that ANY edition of D&D has had stellar skill systems.

[War_lord]

well you aren't reading my post anymore. So no need to respond to this.

You've ran out of subject changes and graduated to giving up on defending your crap, well done.

[Unoriginal]

Let's contemplate how "monsters can't do anything, because it's up to the DM to decide what the monsters can do" was used as an argument in this thread.

[Chaosmancer]

Why would a thrown weapon push back?

I mean, if it's a giant boulder, why not, but something like an axe or a dagger?

I picture it as the weapon thrown with such force that ut causes you to stumble backwards.

I wouldn't use it for orcs per se, but an ogre's javelin or a demon's thrown axe seems like a really cool idea to me.

1. You point out how some things could work the same.

2. You think my deviation from the base rules wasn't intentional for grapple.

3. You missed my point. The randomness of the d20 is bad when you lack a skill system. Tear down the illusion and just make it obvious that it's the DM deciding everything and that your roll doesn't matter (because it doesn't matter). Also the skill contest rules are bad too in 5e, so those might as well be DM Fiat too.

My god man, pick a complaint and stick with it.

So, it is no longer that monsters can't attempt things because they don't have the skills (because that is false, they do have the skills to attempt)

It is no longer that the DCs are arbitrary with no support from the rules, and thus DCs change constantly (because this is mostly false, there are few hard rules for DCs but there are guidelines and the driving principle that once a DC is set it remains the same throughout all levels)

Now it is the fact that the d20 is too swingy and causes too much confusion and chance for things to fail or succeedd. Well, again, you are partially correct. The d20 remains more important to the roll for far longer in 5e. And that is by design. A lot of people got frustrated by the massive bonuses of 3.x and 4e.

I have little idea how 3.5 skills work, but let me try what i can here. Half elf bard, focusing on persuasion. What can I get by level 10? Well, 13 ranks to start with, then focus for +3, half elf gives +2, negotiator gives another 2, synergy with either bluff or sense motive gives 2, and we'll assume a 20 charisma, though it could be higher, so +5.

That's a +27 to the roll, with no magic, no situation mods, and probably not even built well for this focus. You've got a nearly 40% chance of a single roll turning someone from wishing you ill to being willing to protect you from enemies (looks like a DC 40, which means you need to roll a 13) and you pretty much auto-succeed on anything else in that unfriendly category. So, if this character walked into a store where the blscksmith spit on him for being a half breed, and they wanted diplomacy to grt a discount and become friends, considering that is a dc 25 why would they bother rolling? They just do it. Even a 1 doesn't have them fall below that line.

5e bard, same focus, same charisma, and using expertise is a total mod of +13. Still probably auto succeeding on making friends with the blacksmith, but considering that's probably a hard dc of 20 it's at least an interesting check, they need at least a 7 to succeed. And taking that same guy and make him willing to fight for you. Probably not going to happen. Its either DC 25 with disadvantage or DC 30, but that die roll becomes important because it is deciding success or failure.

A lot of us prefer the d20 roll to matter, because we came to the table to roll dice. And in 5e, the d20 matters a lot compared to how it mattered in other additions

[UrielAwakened]

Nope, this topic hasn't gotten less dumb over the weekend.

[Ratter]

If the start of the initiative order has been reached a fourth time, and no PC or NPC has dropped yet, than AC's, and/or HP's are too high, or "to hit mod's" or damage is too low.

(BTW, love the blog).

I dont know about you guys, but in my 5e campaign, most combats last 3 rounds or less, people die SO FAST.

[Ratter]

If you can't defend your stance in the face of even mild criticism, that says much about its merits.

He was just saying the way you said it had no room for further argument, insulting the idea, and also, you fundamentally disagree, you are a simulationist player, he likes the rule of cool, that is all

[Ratter]

BBEG is a parody of 4th edition who fills his dungeon with gas spores with "Ogre" branded on them, and has a lair action that forces the PCs to headbutt themselves if he Naruto runs past them.

He has a +3 greatsword, but using it is a daily power so he's overcome with guilt afterward and has to sleep on the matter.

Can I sig this?

[Ratter]

If you don't know what a word is, or what it means, I suggest that you use a different word that you do know the meaning of. I am going to guess that you meant to use condescension there. (A shorter word, scorn, might have fit, but that gets into choices and preferences).

thats really condescending

[Ratter]

[spoiler=rhedyn]



(if this is supposed to be humor, i apologize. There's no blue text so i assumed it not sarcasm.)

oh so thats what blue text means

[War_lord]

Can I sig this?

I guess, I don't understand why people ask. Public post, public domain.

EDIT: Also, I know you're new, but you shouldn't chainpost. If something occurs to you after posting you should edit it, like so.

[opaopajr]

Long Live Voltron-Megazord D&D!