Why the hate on 5e?

[Mongobear]

Yup. DM Fiat. As in, play the game the way that YOU want to play it. Not the way someone that you are never going to meet, in an office you are never going to visit, decides that it should be played.

I mean, come on...your creating an entire world from scratch. Is creating a few DC's on the fly really that much harder? You assign your DC checks based on A) your PC's current power/ability level and B) how hard/easy you want it to be for your players to succeed. There is no need to have a list of DC's or a comprehensive list of DC examples. You assign a DC to a task based soley on your need at the time.

You realize we're playing a game that was entirely designed by a group of *some guys we will never meet" in an office, right? AND they have made equally useful/useless tables for even less used things. Remember the "this is your life" table and the Cultural Name Generators in XGTE? I would gladly trade both of those, in totality, for a small entry for skill DC guidelines.

Earlier in the thread, I posted word for word, the text from 3.5s tables, which differentiates different traits that make different Climb DCs harder than others, that's what I want. It would take up at most one page for each skill, most often less, similar to the Tool Proficiency entry in XGtE.

Yes, it absolutely would make it worse for me as a DM, because players would expect me to use that list, and I am not able to. Several people here have repeatedly said they don't want a 300 page list of tree or cliff attributes, but that's exactly what it would have to be in order for me to find it at all useful. Saying a "typical tree" is like saying a "grlwizels tree." It's not a phrase that means anything to me, so I have no idea whether the tree I'm imagining in the game world should be harder or easier to climb. So yeah, not having a list of DCs means there's no grounds for players to resent me not being able to use a list of DCs.

See above.

I absolutely don't believe that such tables would make a game harder. That's like saying suddenly, tool proficiencies became harder with XGtE.

[Pex]

5e's skill system is about as bare-bones as DnD has ever gotten. Here's a question, where would you actually put a tree-climbing table? In the Athletics section? Would you have a section of the book dedicated to DC tables? 3e's easy because Climb is a separate skill, and it doesn't even explain trees in any meaningful detail (which among many other reasons is why I find it a rather crappy table).

Also your examples are both incredibly flawed. There are a lot of benefits and very few downsides to having a universal Plate armor. There are a ton of downsides to making a universal tree (I would put most trees anywhere from DC 5 for one with large low-hanging branches that go all the way up, to DC 20 for a Redwood, which is functionally like climbing a wooden cliff). Guidance does literally one very abstract thing, and note that 1d4 does not always have the same output. Guidance could be legitimately described as a random +1 to 4 on a skill check.

For me, it's not that continuity and comprehensiveness are flawed, it's that most of the people in this thread who support DC tables don't go far enough. If 5e's to have skill tables, they better have some actual work put into them, and be a lot more comprehensive than "oh yeah a tree is usually DC 15".

A small table where each skill is described giving the examples, like how it was done in Xanathar book for tool use.

Also, since this went mostly unaddressed:

Spoiler: Pex

Show

This can also be a result of mistrust between the players and DM in either or both directions, so it's not entirely about lack of skill DCs. I experience it as a problem when playing different games with different DMs because they differ on what makes something easy or hard and neither are doing it wrong and there's trust. It's a frustration for me to be playing one game where I can do something just because I want to but in a different game wanting to do the same thing I have to roll, exacerbated by failing to meet the DC of what the DM made up and can't do it at all. People here can claim all they want you shouldn't have to roll for something. Another DM will say yes you do roll and that DM is not playing the game wrong.

A DM is not wrong for calling a check. However, a check is an explicit statement to your players that the action could succeed, or it could fail. Regardless of what the DM actually means, that is what calling for an ability check says. Roll the d20, add the modifier, and the result determines whether it works. If the DM intends for the action to be impossible or impossible to fail, then either they are deceiving the players and the result will always be the same (perfect valid in some cases imo), or they are incorrectly implementing their intent by asking for a check. And if your DM believes that climbing a tree is a risky action, then yeah, power to them, I don't see the issue.

The issue is the rules changing because of who is DM that day. Every game any DM I can cast Guidance and give someone +1d4 to an ability check. Every game any DM I can attack with a long sword and do 1d8 + ST modifier damage. Every game any DM I can wear plate armor and have AC 18. I want to climb a tree, know something about a monster I'm fighting, calm a bear into not attacking, suddenly the game math and how it resolves don't exist, the DM has to make it up. That's the problem.

But that's how it works in 5e.

And that is what we're criticizing. We know how it works. We don't like it that it is that way, hence the thread.

[MaxWilson]

First off, accusing 5e's approach to skills as being "actively harmful" is basically the same sorta argument as people claiming that 3e turns people into powergaming munchkins who will always abuse a rule given the chance.

Whoa, that escalated quickly. Hyperbole much?

[Pex]

Chapter 7 Using Ability Scores. the table is called "Typical Difficulty Classes"

I have discovered that in the past six months, a very worthy contributor got tired of the 5e hate and no longer contributes here. He pointed to the DMG table and I'll try to find that post.

It is not enough to say Hard is DC 15. What makes the task Hard? What one DM says is Hard another DM says is Easy so the DC is different for the exact same task. The rules change.

[Mongobear]

It is not enough to say Hard is DC 15. What makes the task Hard? What one DM says is Hard another DM says is Easy so the DC is different for the exact same task. The rules change.

Very much this. It's the Matt Mercer/Critical Role Effect.

DM: "It's a DC 20 to climb this tree."
PC: "But, Matt Mercer makes his trees DC 10!"

DM: "To convince this Guard to let you pass without papers, it'll be DC 25, but I'll give you advantage for your conversation earlier."
PC: "But when [CR PC] did this exact situation on the new episode, Matt let him auto succeed! Why do I even have to roll?"

DM: "This is a bit of an abstract subject, I'll say it's DC 25 Arcana to remember the proper arcane phrase you read in your masters spellbook before he disappeared."
PC: "What? The Wizard on CR didn't have to roll to remember this, Matt just let her do it, and I'm higher level than she was in that episode!"

Now, don't get me wrong, I absolutely love Matt's gaming sessions, and believe they're part of the reason D&D is so popular nowadays. But it has also caused a bad wave of new players expecting EVERYTHING to work like their method of things.

[Knaight]

I seriously doubt it slows down games in any meaningful way, moreso as compared to the time it takes for a DM to decide whether it would be easy/medium/hard. Especially if you're prepared and have a DM screen or the book open to that section already, and prepared the setting fully and have notes for every tree in the relevant area and know the DCs ahead of time.

In my experience the time it takes for a DM to decide whether it would be easy/medium/hard is exceedingly negligible - we're talking times best measured in milliseconds. That's one of the fundamental disconnects here; the amount of effort it takes to use a bunch of tables vs. make a judgment call varies. That's fine, and I'm glad we have games for both approaches, but the people for whom the former is easier acting like it's just easier for everyone and making a game for the people for whom the latter is easier means making a game which doesn't function gets really old, really fast.

[Pex]

Which is enough to show how horribly unbalanced and unrealistic it was. To think that a skilled and strong adventurer would fail to climb regular trees half the time tells me that whoever wrote that table was thinking of how hard it was for HIM. I can only suppose that a similar design philosophy was followed for other skills. I'm happy to play a more realistic game like 5e.

Perhaps. I'm not going to quibble on whether the game math of 3E is realistic enough, but I like the method. I'm not saying 5E needs skill points now. It's about the listed DC tables. 5E tables could have had lower DCs to reflect Bounded Accuracy and take the opportunity to be more realistic. I know I climbed trees in my backyard when I was 4 years old, so yeah, DC 15 seems wrong. Whatever the more accurate number could have been, at least there would have been a number instead of my 10 ST non-Athletics proficient Warlock being Tarzan while my 18 ST proficient in Athletics Paladin being George of the Jungle.

This is how communities tend to self select and reinforce. I have noticed certain issues crop up again and again on this board that don't exist elsewhere or in the community at large.

Group think is another way to put it. Everyone around thinks a certain way so the group doesn't think it is possible to think a different way.

At some point it's healthy to realize that you can only lead the horse to water.

Personally I'm glad for once I'm not the only one on my side of this particular argument in a thread even if our opinions aren't matching exactly, but the differences are minute it's not significant between us. At least I don't think so.

So simple question, I guess. How is the DM setting the DC for a skill/ability check based on a desired level of challenge any different than the DM building an encounter around CR?

Longer explanation:

If I'm planning a session for a 1st level party and there's a good chance they'll run into a band of ruffians, I'm going to try to balance that encounter as roughly CR 1, or at least no more than that. I can justify it in the fiction by working out that because of where the PCs are, those are the kinds of baddies they'll run into. Does anyone consider this railroading or playing "mother may I?"

But say I'm planning a session for a 1st level party and they start off trapped in a room, and there's a chain dangling from the ceiling by a small opening that could be used to escape (perhaps among other options). I decide to make the chain easy to climb and therefore DC 10, so it's feasible these beginners could use it. I work out an in-fiction explanation, like the chain might have once been part of a chain ladder of some sort, and the other chain is missing, but there are still remnants of steps connected to it. Is that a problem? Is that railroading?

You don't need rules at all. You can run a game at full improv, make up everything on the spot. When there are rules I expect to play by them. There are rules for how a bugbear works. There are rules for how casting the spell Fireball works. Why can't there be rules for how to determine what my character knows about a monster I'm facing?

This is not to say a DM is forbidden from changing things. Give the bugbear better armor. A particular NPC bad guy casts Coldball. There are still rules for how they function. The bugbear wearing plate armor has AC 18. Coldball does 8d6 cold damage and has a DX save of 8 + ability modifier + proficiency. A DM can deviate further but then we're getting closer to full improv. At some point there are rules to be played. With skills it's full improv. It's that full improv that's being objected to.

[JoeJ]

I absolutely don't believe that such tables would make a game harder. That's like saying suddenly, tool proficiencies became harder with XGtE.

I didn't say harder, I said worse. But if you're not going to believe what I say about my experience, then there's no point in carrying this any further.

[Mongobear]

I didn't say harder, I said worse. But if you're not going to believe what I say about my experience, then there's no point in carrying this any further.

My mistake switching the two, but even with the right word subbed in, my point stands. How can a tool, which already has similar versions in the game, that does nothing but help a DM do his job make a game worse? Especially when, like nearly every other new rule outside of the 3 core books, is completely optional?

If you want to use them, there they are. I'd you don't, flip the page. It's no different than Feats, or Multiclassing, or any of the umpteen variants in the DMG. I just want them so I have the OPTION to use them, I'm not wishing for them to be forced upon everyone without the option to use the RAW method.

[AdAstra]

A small table where each skill is described giving the examples, like how it was done in Xanathar book for tool use.



The issue is the rules changing because of who is DM that day. Every game any DM I can cast Guidance and give someone +1d4 to an ability check. Every game any DM I can attack with a long sword and do 1d8 + ST modifier damage. Every game any DM I can wear plate armor and have AC 18. I want to climb a tree, know something about a monster I'm fighting, calm a bear into not attacking, suddenly the game math and how it resolves don't exist, the DM has to make it up. That's the problem.



And that is what we're criticizing. We know how it works. We don't like it that it is that way, hence the thread.

Again, my contention is that if you're going to have an optional skill table, you should make something that actually quantifies these things comprehensively. None of this "most trees are a DC 10 Str (Athletics) check to climb", I want actual tables and modifiers. Give me a tool to model a spruce tree, or a redwood, or a mangrove. You set your sights too low, and end up with the disadvantages of both systems (DCs are too vague AND they put an arbitrary number on a complex thing)

Some DMs will make things harder than others. Some play monsters as pointy meat sacks, others play them as war game units, others play them as they feel such a monster should act, etc. Some DMs have monsters surrender, or flee, or regroup and plan ambushes and set traps and encircle the players. Just as a cunning player can dramatically increase the effectiveness of the same character, an tactical DM can make the same monsters far more effective than their CR would suggest. Certainly more effective than one that just feeds them towards the party beatsticks.

This example is not perfect, as one can and often does use differing monster composition to vary difficulty, but again, simple tactics can make one fight vastly more difficult than another, even when all the numbers are the same. So there's your DM-dependent variance in combat irrespective of numbers.

[Mongobear]

This example is not perfect, as one can and often does use differing monster composition to vary difficulty, but again, simple tactics can make one fight vastly more difficult than another, even when all the numbers are the same. So there's your DM-dependent variance in combat irrespective of numbers.

This has existed since the dawn of d&d, and likely TTRPGs themselves. What hasn't existed, for the most part, is a system puts literally everything in the world, every activity, every skill check on the shoulders of a DM being able to improv it on the spot.

AFAIK, 1e had tables for various skills like climbing that was mentioned earlier, searching for stuff was a d6 roll, various other things were as simple as "roll under your relevant ability score, opening doors or bending bars was a dice range based on strength.

2e I didn't play, but it most mostly the same from what I read.

3.Xe fleshed out the entire system, every skill had tables upon tables of examples, modifiers, and even entire books that expanded upon it even further so that you could math it out to a precise DC if you wanted.

We don't talk about 4e... *shudders*

5e? Here's an extremely vague table of generic DCs and ~15 Skills, GOOD LUCK!!! Literally nothing to help a DM design or improv something. They're literally told in the book to wing every skill check as they happen. The, 2 years later, print tables for a very specific niche od skill use, but don't help with the base system. And you say this is ok, and easier than having a baseline to go by/modify ourselves?

[MaxWilson]

This has existed since the dawn of d&d, and likely TTRPGs themselves. What hasn't existed, for the most part, is a system puts literally everything in the world, every activity, every skill check on the shoulders of a DM being able to improv it on the spot.

...while at the same time, outlawing many sensible improvs. We've talked previously in this thread about how the d20 probability distribution is inappropriate for many problem domains because it makes chance far more important than skill. What if the right probability distribution is exponentially-decreasing failure chances with level? What if I want an untrained individual to have an 80% chance of failing, a modestly-skilled individual to have 40%, a skilled and talented individual to have 20% chance of failing, and a talented and highly-trained individual to have only a 10% chance of failing? That's already something which cannot be modeled by an ability check, so no singular DC that you can pick is ever appropriate.

[AdAstra]

This has existed since the dawn of d&d, and likely TTRPGs themselves. What hasn't existed, for the most part, is a system puts literally everything in the world, every activity, every skill check on the shoulders of a DM being able to improv it on the spot.

AFAIK, 1e had tables for various skills like climbing that was mentioned earlier, searching for stuff was a d6 roll, various other things were as simple as "roll under your relevant ability score, opening doors or bending bars was a dice range based on strength.

2e I didn't play, but it most mostly the same from what I read.

3.Xe fleshed out the entire system, every skill had tables upon tables of examples, modifiers, and even entire books that expanded upon it even further so that you could math it out to a precise DC if you wanted.

We don't talk about 4e... *shudders*

5e? Here's an extremely vague table of generic DCs and ~15 Skills, GOOD LUCK!!! Literally nothing to help a DM design or improv something. They're literally told in the book to wing every skill check as they happen. The, 2 years later, print tables for a very specific niche od skill use, but don't help with the base system. And you say this is ok, and easier than having a baseline to go by/modify ourselves?

Not easier, but better and usually faster. The same way that very few tables ban "optional" rules like feats and multiclassing, the very nature of skill tables means that they will be far from optional for most players and DMs. Suggestion quickly becomes convention, convention quickly becomes de facto law. That's kinda the point of having DC suggestions in the first place, most players are expected to use them.

If a designer wants to have the advantages of a consistent set of Skill DCs, then they better damn well put actual work into the tables. My opinion is that you should either have genuinely comprehensive guides for setting DCs, or go as bare-bones as practical. The solution posited by most people in favor of DC suggestions is the worst of both worlds.

EDIT: Also, I'm not sure where you read that I consider this method easier. Probably somewhere? But considering you've also accused someone else of saying the same thing makes me dubious.

[Mongobear]

@MaxWilson

That's getting into an entirely different game system. D20 will never have that sort of breakdown, you would need either a d100 system like Dark Heresy, or a Fallout TTRPG with the S.P.E.C.I.A.L. Attributes tied directly to your skills, but also likely d100 based, which I don't think actually exists yet.

Maybe something else, like FATE, or something would pull that off, but I've mainly stuck to d20 game systems.

[diplomancer]

...while at the same time, outlawing many sensible improvs. We've talked previously in this thread about how the d20 probability distribution is inappropriate for many problem domains because it makes chance far more important than skill. What if the right probability distribution is exponentially-decreasing failure chances with level? What if I want an untrained individual to have an 80% chance of failing, a modestly-skilled individual to have 40%, a skilled and talented individual to have 20% chance of failing, and a talented and highly-trained individual to have only a 10% chance of failing? That's already something which cannot be modeled by an ability check, so no singular DC that you can pick is ever appropriate.

It can't be modeled to precision with the 5e ruleset, with no margin of error, true, but nothing in the rules stops the DM, for a particular check, to:
-Give automatic success to someone skilled in it
-Give automatic failure for someone unskilled in it
(Languages already work that way in the game, even though, if you ever tried to learn a second language, you know it's not as simple as all that. There is a case to be made that some activities with tools also work the same way)
-Give advantage for someone skilled in it
-Give disadvantage for someone unskilled in it

Get all those things together and the DM can model anything quite well, apart from setting any DC.

[MaxWilson]

Not easier, but better. The same way that very few tables ban "optional" rules like feats and multiclassing, the very nature of skill tables means that they will be far from optional for most players and DMs. Suggestion quickly becomes convention, convention quickly becomes de facto law. That's kinda the point of having DC suggestions in the first place, most players are expected to use them.

If a designer wants to have the advantages of a consistent set of Skill DCs, then they better damn well put actual work into the tables. My opinion is that you should either have genuinely comprehensive guides for setting DCs, or go as bare-bones as practical. The solution posited by most people in favor of DC suggestions is the worst of both worlds.

That's kind of the problem--the current 5E design is already the worst of both worlds, because players expect to do things via ability checks even though d20 rolls don't model most things very well, and yet DMs are expected to invent all of the necessary preconditions/effects on failure or success/DCs, while still being (effectively) constrained to use d20 checks as the resolution mechanic. You get all the problems of the d20 system but none of the benefits. It is the worst of both worlds already.

@MaxWilson

That's getting into an entirely different game system. D20 will never have that sort of breakdown, you would need either a d100 system like Dark Heresy, or a Fallout TTRPG with the S.P.E.C.I.A.L. Attributes tied directly to your skills, but also likely d100 based, which I don't think actually exists yet.

Maybe something else, like FATE, or something would pull that off, but I've mainly stuck to d20 game systems.

It's actually not an inherently different game system, or at least, 5E already uses exponentially-decreasing failure chances in combat (higher level = higher HP = more failed rolls allowed before actual failure). You can model the same thing in 5E by requiring repeated ability checks instead of increasing the DCs: e.g. one DC 10 check for every 10' of wall or tree climbed. But 5E doesn't teach you to do this by default.

It can't be modeled to precision with the 5e ruleset, with no margin of error, true, but nothing in the rules stops the DM, for a particular check, to:
-Give automatic success to someone skilled in it
-Give automatic failure for someone unskilled in it
-Give advantage for someone skilled in it
-Give disadvantage for someone unskilled in it

Get all those things together and the DM can model anything quite well, apart from setting any DC.

If you do the math you will discover that this claim is false. None of the things you describe result in the desired probability distribution.

[AdAstra]

Difficulty set by degree of level-appropriate challenge first, and then wrapped in fluff detail to justify it, is a form of treadmill progression.

That's exactly my point. Treadmill progression exists with both systems, so it's not a useful argument.

[AdAstra]

That's kind of the problem--the current 5E design is already the worst of both worlds, because players expect to do things via ability checks even though d20 rolls don't model most things very well, and yet DMs are expected to invent all of the necessary preconditions/effects on failure or success/DCs, while still being (effectively) constrained to use d20 checks as the resolution mechanic. You get all the problems of the d20 system but none of the benefits. It is the worst of both worlds already.

You're not getting rid of d20s as the basic resolution die in a DnD game. Not for another few editions at least.
You're not supposed to use ability checks for every action the player takes. You use them when the outcome is notably risky or in doubt. People have said this over and over again. The climb system is evidence of this. Most clearly climbable things, anyone can climb just fine at half-speed. Particularly difficult things to climb, or trying to climb at full speed, are what you would use checks for. These things map far better to a d20, because by nature they're a lot more variable and risky. Ask a person to walk a foot-wide platform? Most people can probably do it with minimal training, especially if they say, crawl while clinging to the platform. Ask a person to run across, while people are shooting arrows at them? That's up in the air, even if they're competent gymnasts.

[diplomancer]

If you do the math you will discover that this claim is false. None of the things you describe result in the desired probability distribution.

DC 11, first guy makes roll with disadvantage, that makes it 75% chance of failure, close enough to the 80 % that you want, second guy adds his proficiency bonus (+2) and has a regular roll, 40% chance of failure, as you want, third guy has the same proficiency bonus but makes it with advantage, so has 16% chance of failure, also close to the 20 % you want, fourth guy has expertise and advantage, 9% chance of failure.

As I said, within a reasonable margin of error (really, 5% on a d20 system is as good as it gets), the rule set allows you to do what you want (even though you invented a 4th category that is not in the game rules, which foresee non-proficient, proficient, expert)

Those probabilities are so close to what you want, that the characters, in-game, would not be able to tell the difference, at least until they create the Statistician class. Remember that probabilities were discovered by Pascal and Fermat, in the 17th century. It's reasonable to think that, in faux-medieval D&D, people thought of those things as "I don't think it will work", "It could work", "it should work", "unless the gods are against it, it will work".

[Mongobear]

Not easier, but better and usually faster. The same way that very few tables ban "optional" rules like feats and multiclassing, the very nature of skill tables means that they will be far from optional for most players and DMs. Suggestion quickly becomes convention, convention quickly becomes de facto law. That's kinda the point of having DC suggestions in the first place, most players are expected to use them.

If a designer wants to have the advantages of a consistent set of Skill DCs, then they better damn well put actual work into the tables. My opinion is that you should either have genuinely comprehensive guides for setting DCs, or go as bare-bones as practical. The solution posited by most people in favor of DC suggestions is the worst of both worlds.

EDIT: Also, I'm not sure where you read that I consider this method easier. Probably somewhere? But considering you've also accused someone else of saying the same thing makes me dubious.

Maybe my local groups are unique, but hardly any of them use much of the Optional Rules and UAs that exist. I'm by far the most experienced DM, and I've used very little UA content, and only use Feats/MC, and Battle Grid Maps from the optional rules in the printed books. I know a few other groups who run Featless, a few that don't allow MCing, and maybe one that actively uses UA constantly.

I know, small sample size, but I don't believe that introducing something like tables, whether slightly vague like I would like, or so comprehensive that it makes 3.5e look skeletal would have much of an impact on 5e as a whole. It certainly wouldn't be AL legal, if they did it via a UA article, and unless I'm mistaken, a DM can't run optional rules in AL unless they adopt it for everything, like Feats/MCing?

Outside of my local towns "gamer meta" I've only been to one small convention that ran a large dnd event with maybe 200 people, and even they didn't allow optional rules. This was likely for ease of managing the 30+ DMs in attendance, but I talked with most of them afterwards and most said it was how they normally did things.

I honestly don't know why you think an optional skill expansion for those of us who want it would ruin the game for people who don't want it. Just like literally every other new resource outside of the core books, you don't have to buy/download it, you can ignore it and keep playing your way as though it never happened, and let those of us asking for it rejoice with our new found toys.

As far as misinterpreting the reasoning behind arguments, probably just mixing up names and not fully catching some meanings in certain things. It's been over 10 pages of back and forth since I joined the topic, so I've probably mixxed people around. (I only just realized MaxWilson and Max_Killjoy were different people, I thought it was the same guy for 10+ pages.

[AdAstra]

Maybe my local groups are unique, but hardly any of them use much of the Optional Rules and UAs that exist. I'm by far the most experienced DM, and I've used very little UA content, and only use Feats/MC, and Battle Grid Maps from the optional rules in the printed books. I know a few other groups who run Featless, a few that don't allow MCing, and maybe one that actively uses UA constantly.

I know, small sample size, but I don't believe that introducing something like tables, whether slightly vague like I would like, or so comprehensive that it makes 3.5e look skeletal would have much of an impact on 5e as a whole. It certainly wouldn't be AL legal, if they did it via a UA article, and unless I'm mistaken, a DM can't run optional rules in AL unless they adopt it for everything, like Feats/MCing?

Outside of my local towns "gamer meta" I've only been to one small convention that ran a large dnd event with maybe 200 people, and even they didn't allow optional rules. This was likely for ease of managing the 30+ DMs in attendance, but I talked with most of them afterwards and most said it was how they normally did things.

I honestly don't know why you think an optional skill expansion for those of us who want it would ruin the game for people who don't want it. Just like literally every other new resource outside of the core books, you don't have to buy/download it, you can ignore it and keep playing your way as though it never happened, and let those of us asking for it rejoice with our new found toys.

I consider UA to be way different from feats and MC. They're not in the core books, and they're explicitly playtest content with a lot less attention to balance, rather than variant rules.

If we're going by anecdotes, my local tables have never had a problem with feats or multiclassing to my knowledge. In most cases multiclassing and feats are absent not because they're banned, but because the players aren't interested or lack the system mastery to successfully pursue them of their own initiative. There are only a few instances where taking levels in a different class is viable before level 5 or later(Starting fighter for armor/Action Surge or dipping warlock mainly, and even those lose out on vital progression early on). I get the feeling that most of the tables that don't use multiclassing/feats would probably allow them on a case by case basis. Probably no Xbow Expert/Sharpshooter cheese, but I don't think most DMs would object to someone getting Keen Mind or Magic Initiate. Multiclassing's probably more dicey, but there will be plenty of tables that would shun a Hexblade dip, but wouldn't mind a fighter-rogue. Feel free to ask if you feel comfortable, I'd be interested in knowing.

My worry is that it'll be half-assed like the 3e jump tables were (one of the instances where I think 5e manages to be nearly as comprehensive and a lot more accurate to how jumping actually works). A whole lotta text that basically exists to give people a bad method of doing things. I would be interested in those tables. I also think that if those tables weren't good it would be actively harmful to the game, and I would rather not have them than have lazily-written ones.

I would also like to look at this for a moment:

Spoiler: Mongobear

Show

Very much this. It's the Matt Mercer/Critical Role Effect.

DM: "It's a DC 20 to climb this tree."
PC: "But, Matt Mercer makes his trees DC 10!"

DM: "To convince this Guard to let you pass without papers, it'll be DC 25, but I'll give you advantage for your conversation earlier."
PC: "But when [CR PC] did this exact situation on the new episode, Matt let him auto succeed! Why do I even have to roll?"

DM: "This is a bit of an abstract subject, I'll say it's DC 25 Arcana to remember the proper arcane phrase you read in your masters spellbook before he disappeared."
PC: "What? The Wizard on CR didn't have to roll to remember this, Matt just let her do it, and I'm higher level than she was in that episode!"

Now, don't get me wrong, I absolutely love Matt's gaming sessions, and believe they're part of the reason D&D is so popular nowadays. But it has also caused a bad wave of new players expecting EVERYTHING to work like their method of things.

This is exactly the worry that a lot of people have expressed about suggested skill DCs. The presence of an example creates a precedent, where DMs who do not follow are likely to receive complaints by players. Only here, it's not just a famous DM, it's the designers of the game themselves. That carries even more weight, and thus potentially more conflict if a DM does not use the "suggested" DCs.

[Mongobear]

My worry is that it'll be half-assed like the 3e jump tables were (one of the instances where I think 5e manages to be nearly as comprehensive and a lot more accurate to how jumping actually works). A whole lotta text that basically exists to give people a bad method of doing things. I would be interested in those tables. I also think that if those tables weren't good it would be actively harmful to the game, and I would rather not have them than have lazily-written ones.

My opinion on the entirety of 5e's Skill system is that it's already half-assed. I want these tables to make up for a missing cheek, or atleast act as a cushion so we aren't sitting so crooked all the time.

[AdAstra]

My opinion on the entirety of 5e's Skill system is that it's already half-assed. I want these tables to make up for a missing cheek, or atleast act as a cushion so we aren't sitting so crooked all the time.

I think that 5e's skill system isn't half-assed, just as bare-bones as a DnD-style skill system can get. To me, it's like a metal folding chair: not the most comfortable, but (comparatively) lightweight and easy to deploy wherever or stow as needed. I see the 3e skill system like a lumpy cushion nailed to the floor: theoretically useable, but too shoddy to be comfortable, and too integrated to toss to the side. I'm sure you'll have disagreements to my choice of metaphors, same as I have with yours, so I think another avenue of discussion is probably better.

[ad_hoc]

My opinion on the entirety of 5e's Skill system is that it's already half-assed. I want these tables to make up for a missing cheek, or atleast act as a cushion so we aren't sitting so crooked all the time.

The skill system is intentionally designed the way it is.

The vast majority of people like it and it clearly works.

It not being for you doesn't mean that the designers were lazy or did things half way.

[diplomancer]

The skill system is intentionally designed the way it is.

The vast majority of people like it and it clearly works.

It not being for you doesn't mean that the designers were lazy or did things half way.

This is a good point. If there are far more people playing D&D today than in the past, that means that the system works better than other systems.

You are free to say "it's not for me", "I would prefer it to be like this", or other similar expressions but it makes no sense to say "it's broken and doesn't work" when there is empirical evidence that it works BETTER than other editions.

[AdAstra]

This is a good point. If there are far more people playing D&D today than in the past, that means that the system works better than other systems.

You are free to say "it's not for me", "I would prefer it to be like this", or other similar expressions but it makes no sense to say "it's broken and doesn't work" when there is empirical evidence that it works BETTER than other editions.

Eh you could chalk that down to market and cultural trends. Plus even if the system as a whole is good, its parts can still be of varying quality. Bandwagon reasoning really isn't viable here.

[diplomancer]

Eh you could chalk that down to market and cultural trends. Plus even if the system as a whole is good, its parts can still be of varying quality. Bandwagon reasoning really isn't viable here.

Not really. A game exists to be played (a controversial claim, I know, some people think that a game exists to simulate reality) If a lot of people play it, it works. If it was as bad as some people claim "it's unusable and needs extensive reworking" there would be some market-response to that problem.

Honestly, I think a lot of the players and DMs couldn't care less about getting the probabilities precisely right. If you do, though, the system gives you tools with reasonable approximations.

[AdAstra]

Not really. If it was as bad as some people claim "it's unusable and needs extensive reworking" there would be some market-response to that problem.

Honestly, I think a lot of the players and DMs couldn't care less about getting the probabilities precisely right. If you do, though, the system gives you tools with reasonable approximations.

The problem is that there are very few players of notable size in the same market as DnD. Even in the overall market of TTRPGs DnD is dominant (though apparently not so much outside the US). Fantasy-wise, the only other big player is Paizo with Pathfinder 2e, which had mixed reception at best. Plus, the market is usually a lot less rational than most give it credit for.

On the second point I couldn't agree more.

[diplomancer]

The problem is that there are very few players of notable size in the same market as DnD. Even in the overall market of TTRPGs DnD is dominant (though apparently not so much outside the US). Fantasy-wise, the only other big player is Paizo with Pathfinder 2e, which had mixed reception at best. The market is usually a lot less rational than most give it credit for.

I'm comparing 5e to other D&D editions, not to other games, though. Are there more people playing 5e than they were playing the other editions? If yes, that probably shows it works "as D&D" better than the previous editions (though cultural trends might explain otherwise), and definitely shows it's not broken or unworkable.

[AdAstra]

I'm comparing 5e to other D&D editions, not to other games, though. Are there more people playing 5e than they were playing the other editions? If yes, that shows it works "as D&D" better than the previous editions

You're probably never going to see a huge influx of DnD 2e players no matter how badly WOTC screws up. People tend to stay in the legacy edition, not go further back. I do think that 5e is an excellent game and deserves its market position, but there's more at work here than just game quality.

In response to your edit, I don't think anyone's argued that 5e is inherently unworkable (ok actually second thought that might not be true). At least a few people pretty much only have an issue with the skill system, and their proposed solutions aren't inherent redesigns.