5e doesn't suck... but it doesn't really stack up well against 3.X

[Nicol Bolas]

Why is nobody bringing up the fact that 5e has a number of skills with DCs that are near impossible for even specialized level-20 characters to succeed at that ordinary humans consistently pull off with little difficulty?

[Sartharina]

Why is nobody bringing up the fact that 5e has a number of skills with DCs that are near impossible for even specialized level-20 characters to succeed at that ordinary humans consistently pull off with little difficulty?

Because it doesn't anymore?

[Knaight]

In 3.P, it was trivial to optimize you 'skill' to the point that you auto-succeed on a 1... your character suddenly ends up knowing everything about everything. Some people like this... a lot don't.

Yes, which is why 5e toned that down - that doesn't mean they didn't over correct. +50 in a d20 system is ridiculous, +11 max is as well.

[McBars]

Why is nobody bringing up the fact that 5e has a number of skills with DCs that are near impossible for even specialized level-20 characters to succeed at that ordinary humans consistently pull off with little difficulty?

Like what? Furnish us with some examples, Because as far as I know there's simply a set of DC's at the beginning of the skills section and none of them refer to any specific tasks or specific skills.

[McBars]

Yes, which is why 5e toned that down - that doesn't mean they didn't over correct. +50 in a d20 system is ridiculous, +11 max is as well.

Not when the most difficult of tasks rings in at a DC of 30

[Sartharina]

Yes, which is why 5e toned that down - that doesn't mean they didn't over correct. +50 in a d20 system is ridiculous, +11 max is as well.

No, +11 Max isn't ridiculous, considering that it's over half the RNG.

[Knaight]

No, +11 Max isn't ridiculous, considering that it's over half the RNG.

The RNG is a linear distribution, which makes that +11 still lose to a completely untrained person with no natural ability 11.25% of the time in opposed checks. Once you get to a novice in the field with a knack for it, that goes up to 22.75%. Those are hefty numbers there, and really don't make proper mastery seem all that impressive.

Curving the scale fixes this - with a 3d6 scale that 11.25% becomes a 0.45% and that 22.75% becomes a 6.08%. Absent the curve though, the other option is to increase the maximum. Doubling proficiency gets to +17, which gets a 1.5% and 7%. Notice that this is actually less significant than the +11 with 3d6.

[ProphetSword]

The RNG is a linear distribution, which makes that +11 still lose to a completely untrained person with no natural ability 11.25% of the time in opposed checks. Once you get to a novice in the field with a knack for it, that goes up to 22.75%. Those are hefty numbers there, and really don't make proper mastery seem all that impressive.

If we reverse that, it becomes an 89.75% success rate for the person with more training, or an 78.25% success rate against someone who has some talent. Those are hefty numbers.

[Psyren]

In 3.P, it was trivial to optimize you 'skill' to the point that you auto-succeed on a 1... your character suddenly ends up knowing everything about everything. Some people like this... a lot don't.

The DM can optimize too, and indeed is supposed to thanks to the CR system. If you want a DC with a 50% or 35% chance of failure you can make one easily, no matter how high the players pump their checks. And it does so far more effectively by not telling the DM and the players that "DC 30 = Nearly Impossible."

Also, a lot of the more egregious skill boosters from 3.5 did not make it to PF at all. No Guidance of the Avatar for instance.

[Knaight]

The DM can optimize too, and indeed is supposed to thanks to the CR system. If you want a DC with a 50% or 35% chance of failure you can make one easily, no matter how high the players pump their checks. And it does so far more effectively by not telling the DM and the players that "DC 30 = Nearly Impossible."

Sure, it is technically possible to pump DCs up to some arbitrary number, but I don't see how competitive optimization here is somehow helpful. What's the point of even having a difficulty class system if it isn't tied to the difficulties of the task, but instead arbitrarily scales with the players to impose a percent chance of failure?

If we reverse that, it becomes an 89.75% success rate for the person with more training, or an 78.25% success rate against someone who has some talent. Those are hefty numbers.

Hardly. An olympic swimmer is going to win against some generic person close to 100% of the time. An expert scientist can routinely deal with complex parts of their field which lay people will fail at, and will likely have more knowledge of the basics close to 100% of the time. That 78.25% is downright anemic, and given that the 89.75% is against a no-talent untrained person it's even worse.

[Psyren]

Sure, it is technically possible to pump DCs up to some arbitrary number, but I don't see how competitive optimization here is somehow helpful. What's the point of even having a difficulty class system if it isn't tied to the difficulties of the task, but instead arbitrarily scales with the players to impose a percent chance of failure?



Hardly. An olympic swimmer is going to win against some generic person close to 100% of the time. An expert scientist can routinely deal with complex parts of their field which lay people will fail at, and will likely have more knowledge of the basics close to 100% of the time. That 78.25% is downright anemic, and given that the 89.75% is against a no-talent untrained person it's even worse.

The second half of your post is answering the question in the first - it allows the DC to be such that 5% or 0% success for the untrained person is possible, as opposed to the incongruous 11.25% and 22.75% chance they get in 5e. If I go to Vecna's Oubliette pocket dimension I would expect the traps to be impossible for a layperson to find (say... DC 50) and indeed they are. But a near-epic plane-hopping thief has a chance.

[Sartharina]

Hardly. An olympic swimmer is going to win against some generic person close to 100% of the time. An expert scientist can routinely deal with complex parts of their field which lay people will fail at, and will likely have more knowledge of the basics close to 100% of the time. That 78.25% is downright anemic, and given that the 89.75% is against a no-talent untrained person it's even worse.

5e doesn't measure or model nonheroic incompetence.

[Psyren]

5e doesn't measure or model nonheroic incompetence.

What about heroic incompetence? There's plenty of that - just ask Bilbo, Po, Rincewind, Bink, Skeeve, Caramon Majere, Ronald Weasley, the entire Order of the Stick...

Should we just not roll, or do they have no place in 5e at all?

[Sartharina]

What about heroic incompetence? There's plenty of that - just ask Bilbo, Po, Rincewind, Bink, Skeeve, Caramon Majere, Ronald Weasley, the entire Order of the Stick...

They can do heroic things. They just tend to fumble them. Or succeed despite their fumbles.

[Psyren]

They can do heroic things. They just tend to fumble them.

And how do you model that without rolling? Arbitrarily deciding what they succeed and fail at? Why adapt anything to a game at all?

[Sartharina]

And how do you model that without rolling? Arbitrarily deciding what they succeed and fail at? Why adapt anything to a game at all?

Simple - you roll, and have a chance of succeeding or failing.

After all - Bilbo's a middle-class homebody who managed to kill several spiders, and rob a dragon blind. With just a little bit of training, Po (If you're thinking the same one I am), managed to single-handedly destroy someone who could destroy armies, and found a hidden cache of cookies as well. Rincewind has been to space. Twice. I don't know Bink. Skeeve is the Dragon Poker Champion, and has cheated and outwitted Deveels.

And on the flip side, Aragorn failed to fall off a Warg and fell over a cliff.

[Psyren]

Simple - you roll, and have a chance of succeeding or failing.

After all - Bilbo's a middle-class homebody who managed to kill several spiders, and rob a dragon blind. With just a little bit of training, Po (If you're thinking the same one I am), managed to single-handedly destroy someone who could destroy armies, and found a hidden cache of cookies as well. Rincewind has been to space. Twice. I don't know Bink. Skeeve is the Dragon Poker Champion, and has cheated and outwitted Deveels.

And on the flip side, Aragorn failed to fall off a Warg and fell over a cliff.

Precisely - so writing off anyone as "nonheroic" or "heroic" and precluding them from rolling solely on either basis is silly. There are circumstances where rolling makes no difference, but that should be determined by the situation, not whether the character is "heroic" or not.

(Bink is from Xanth.)

[Talakeal]

In 3.P, it was trivial to optimize you 'skill' to the point that you auto-succeed on a 1... your character suddenly ends up knowing everything about everything. Some people like this... a lot don't.

3.5 is a bit too easy to cheese out or power game. I personally don't like it, but prefer 3E over competence to 5E incompetence.

Even in 3E you need to try for it, and if you don't want to don't. For example there is very little a core only fighter can be good at aside from making fortitude saves and full attacks, he simply doesn't have the skill points or ability scores to be good at much else. You need to go out of your way taking feats and prestige classes from a bunch of different books if that is what you want.

People want to be fantastic heroes. I can't imagine a real world expert or a fairly down to earth heroic character like Sherlock Holmes failing as often as a 5E character.

Why is nobody bringing up the fact that 5e has a number of skills with DCs that are near impossible for even specialized level-20 characters to succeed at that ordinary humans consistently pull off with little difficulty?

I am pretty sure I brought that up earlier, although maybe not in those exact words.

[Sartharina]

3.5 is a bit too easy to cheese out or power game. I personally don't like it, but prefer 3E over competence to 5E incompetence.

Even in 3E you need to try for it, and if you don't want to don't. For example there is very little a core only fighter can be good at aside from making fortitude saves and full attacks, he simply doesn't have the skill points or ability scores to be good at much else. You need to go out of your way taking feats and prestige classes from a bunch of different books if that is what you want.

And a fighter in 5e is competent across the board. Even a fighter untrained in perception isn't completely hosed when faced by a lurker (Something that saved my party last session). Having a <10% chance of failing an opposed check is NOT a fun thing.

People want to be fantastic heroes. I can't imagine a real world expert or a fairly down to earth heroic character like Sherlock Holmes failing as often as a 5E character.

Except they do, when they're at a situation they need to roll for. 5e has a lot fewer areas you need to roll for.

[McBars]

Why is nobody bringing up the fact that 5e has a number of skills with DCs that are near impossible for even specialized level-20 characters to succeed at that ordinary humans consistently pull off with little difficulty?

I am pretty sure I brought that up earlier, although maybe not in those exact words.

Well, you're both incorrect. DCs are not skill-specific in 5e; there is only the 5,10,15...30 scale corresponding to very easy, easy, medium...impossible tasks as a reference tool/guide for DMs.

Just the fact that level 20 characters CAN succeed at impossible DC'd (DC 30) tasks, while less proficient characters have 0 chance to do so, makes them incredibly skilled compared to the Average Joe Peasant. I'd rather maintain the level of difficulty rather than trivialize supposedly "near impossible" tasks with absurd skill scores that we saw in 3e.

Also, please furnish us with some examples of what you're referring to Nicol, cause last I checked DC tops out at 30 for "Impossible" tasks, so perhaps your DM has incorrectly assigned these mundane tasks an improperly high DC

[Forum Explorer]

Exactly.

If the system only makes sense if you dont roll dice its a bad system.

If a system makes you roll dice needlessly, it's a bad system.

If a system has DC's that are arbitrary, rather then based on logic then it's a bad system.

I'll admit the system does struggle to represent Olympic Swimmer vs Commoner, but that's necessary because a guard spotting a high class thief is something that can happen no matter how good at hiding the thief may be, because the thief can mess up in a tense situation.

And quite frankly the latter is exponentially more likely to come up in play then a physical contest between a level 20 character and a peasant.

And it also prevents ridiculous stuff like this and it's lesser form of this

[Knaight]

I'll admit the system does struggle to represent Olympic Swimmer vs Commoner, but that's necessary because a guard spotting a high class thief is something that can happen no matter how good at hiding the thief may be, because the thief can mess up in a tense situation.

And quite frankly the latter is exponentially more likely to come up in play then a physical contest between a level 20 character and a peasant.

Sure, but penalties handle the first one, and there's still a case to be made that the odds are too high in the guard's favor - particularly as a system of multiple guards pretty much covers things, and the guards likely have some degree of training in guarding things.

[Psyren]

I'll admit the system does struggle to represent Olympic Swimmer vs Commoner, but that's necessary because a guard spotting a high class thief is something that can happen no matter how good at hiding the thief may be, because the thief can mess up in a tense situation.

But PF manages to do both. The fighter can actually be good at keeping watch, and the Olympic Swimmer can trounce the weak, untrained commoner. And as for the thief "messing up in a tense situation" - if it really is that disadvantageous for him, that's what circumstance penalties are for, but most of the time if a class is designed to be good at X it's expected that they have trained to do X under pressure and so most "tense situations" shouldn't matter.

You can also represent a posted sentry by them taking 20 - they're literally standing there doing nothing but watching. So you have to be able to beat 20+whatever their mods are if you're just strolling up to the gate.

[Forum Explorer]

Sure, but penalties handle the first one, and there's still a case to be made that the odds are too high in the guard's favor - particularly as a system of multiple guards pretty much covers things, and the guards likely have some degree of training in guarding things.

Penalties handle which one? The Olympic Swimmer? I thought you said you didn't like how 5e handled that, or are you referring to 3.5? But what penalties would there be in 3.5?


Well I disagree with it being too high in the guard's favor. If it were trivial to sneak by them, then there isn't really a point to having guards now is it? Yeah some character should have it easy (like master assassins) but their class actually gives further bonus to their rolls and other abilities to sneak with. (Giving them stuff like +16 to hide, can't get beneath 10, and/or have advantage on all Stealth rolls)

[Sartharina]

The thief messing up in a tense situation is represented by the d20 roll.

Yes, D&D would probably be better as a 3d6 system instead of d20, but one of the defining features of D&D at a lot of tables (Especially those that don't know anything about this site and the 3.X metagame) is the exaggerated chances of unlikely successes and failures.

[Knaight]

Penalties handle which one? The Olympic Swimmer? I thought you said you didn't like how 5e handled that, or are you referring to 3.5? But what penalties would there be in 3.5?

Penalties handle the thief-guard situation fairly well, though the whole matter of the guards being trained probably means they aren't needed. Still, the person doing the sneaking is going into an area with specially posted guards positioned such that they can see intruders. There's only a certain number of places worth sneaking to that are known in advance. So on and so forth.

[Forum Explorer]

But PF manages to do both. The fighter can actually be good at keeping watch, and the Olympic Swimmer can trounce the weak, untrained commoner. And as for the thief "messing up in a tense situation" - if it really is that disadvantageous for him, that's what circumstance penalties are for, but most of the time if a class is designed to be good at X it's expected that they have trained to do X under pressure and so most "tense situations" shouldn't matter.

You can also represent a posted sentry by them taking 20 - they're literally standing there doing nothing but watching. So you have to be able to beat 20+whatever their mods are if you're just strolling up to the gate.

Can it? I'm under the impression that unless the fighter is min-maxed for detection, and within a certain level gap, they have no chance of detecting a high level stealth character.

Sneaking into a fortress shouldn't be trivial, and should be tense. It is literally designed to prevent people from sneaking in. In fact I'll go as far to say that sneaking should always be a degree of tense. It's a skill where yes, sometimes things just all go wrong. You sneeze. You startle a mouse that knocks over a cup. A guard turns around at the perfect time to see you (breaking his routine expectantly). It's not like remembering something or building something where random chance isn't a factor.

If you are giving him circumstance penalties, then he'd always have them, which kinda defeats the purpose.

Take 20? That's kinda the opposite situation of it, but sure. Let's say they are level 3 guards, giving them a plus 6+ability score in Perception. Let's be generous and say they've got a 18 in Wisdom. So +10 total. And because it's a fortress let's say they have a magic item to give them +5 in detection, maxing them out at +35 when taking 20. That's pretty trivial to beat for a high level stealth character in 3.5.

[Psyren]

Can it? I'm under the impression that unless the fighter is min-maxed for detection, and within a certain level gap, they have no chance of detecting a high level stealth character.

1) Err yeah, "within a certain level gap" is the whole point. I wouldn't expect the Cliffport PD to detect Nale.

2) You don't need to be "min-maxed for detection." Again, a guard being actively vigilant throughout his shift is most likely taking 20, so it is in fact the thief who has to be optimized for stealth - as it should be.

Sneaking into a fortress shouldn't be trivial, and should be tense.

It is only trivial in 3.P if your DM is clueless or inexperienced. That is not a fault of the system.

But conversely, 5e Corvo Attano or 5e Ezio Auditore would be spotted more than once on every mission regardless of skill.

If you are giving him circumstance penalties, then he'd always have them, which kinda defeats the purpose.

Not at all. "They guard the first line of defense a lot better than the second line." So assigning a penalty at the outer wall but not further in is perfectly logical.

Take 20? That's kinda the opposite situation of it, but sure. Let's say they are level 3 guards, giving them a plus 6+ability score in Perception. Let's be generous and say they've got a 18 in Wisdom. So +10 total. And because it's a fortress let's say they have a magic item to give them +5 in detection, maxing them out at +35 when taking 20. That's pretty trivial to beat for a high level stealth character in 3.5.

And that is precisely why you and I are failing to agree - because I believe a high level stealth character should be beating level 3 guards.

But level 15 guards? That's another story.

[Talakeal]

Well, you're both incorrect. DCs are not skill-specific in 5e; there is only the 5,10,15...30 scale corresponding to very easy, easy, medium...impossible tasks as a reference tool/guide for DMs.

Just the fact that level 20 characters CAN succeed at impossible DC'd (DC 30) tasks, while less proficient characters have 0 chance to do so, makes them incredibly skilled compared to the Average Joe Peasant. I'd rather maintain the level of difficulty rather than trivialize supposedly "near impossible" tasks with absurd skill scores that we saw in 3e.

Also, please furnish us with some examples of what you're referring to Nicol, cause last I checked DC tops out at 30 for "Impossible" tasks, so perhaps your DM has incorrectly assigned these mundane tasks an improperly high DC

If we are going to be correcting each other, it is actually listed as Nearly Impossible, not Impossible.

Still, that just highlights one of the big problems with the system. We don't actually know what these terms mean, and they are almost completely subjective. Is winning a gold metal in the Olympics Hard, Very Hard, or Nearly Impossible? How about coming up with Special Relativity? Scaring away an angry grizzly with a look? Forging Excalibur? Inventing the Steam Engine? Writing War and Peace?

The PHB doesn't actually give us very many guidelines on what to classify a given task as, and thus I prefer to focus on how hard it is for trained characters to succeed on Easy and Medium tasks instead. I find it much harder to believe that Einstein can only revolutionize world physics 10% of the time than he will fail to complete a college level math problem 20% of the time (assuming he is a level 20 character with a 20 intelligence).

[McBars]

If we are going to be correcting each other, it is actually listed as Nearly Impossible, not Impossible.

Still, that just highlights one of the big problems with the system. We don't actually know what these terms mean, and they are almost completely subjective. Is winning a gold metal in the Olympics Hard, Very Hard, or Nearly Impossible? How about coming up with Special Relativity? Scaring away an angry grizzly with a look? Forging Excalibur? Inventing the Steam Engine? Writing War and Peace?

The PHB doesn't actually give us very many guidelines on what to classify a given task as, and thus I prefer to focus on how hard it is for trained characters to succeed on Easy and Medium tasks instead. I find it much harder to believe that Einstein can only revolutionize world physics 10% of the time than he will fail to complete a college level math problem 20% of the time (assuming he is a level 20 character with a 20 intelligence).

Well, that's where you as the DM come in; it's up to you to assign the DC.

Likely, the DC's should be somewhat subjective with respect to the character in question. A college level math problem should be rated DC < 5 for Einstein, and 30 for Caramon.

Those 2 procedures will no doubt drive some people crazy, and be met with petulant complaints like "What were the lazy devs thinking?" but it works great for my table.