The 5e skill system looks reasonable to me. You have a DC, you have a d20 and you have a bunch of bonuses you add to it. Starting out, a rogue picks DC 15 locks 70% of the time.
What am I missing?
D&DNext: Playtest Review
Moderator: Moderators
FrankTrollman wrote:I think Grek already won the thread and we should pack it in.
Chamomile wrote:Grek is a national treasure.
The main problem with it is that it can look reasonable on the surface, but actually isn't.Grek wrote:The 5e skill system looks reasonable to me. You have a DC, you have a d20 and you have a bunch of bonuses you add to it. Starting out, a rogue picks DC 15 locks 70% of the time.
What am I missing?
That the numbers diverge wildly, the guidelines suck where they are not being actively stupid, the DCs are whim based, and there are things you just can't do based on whether something is a skill or a tool. And some skills and tools are nigh-useless. And some, like the herbalist's kit, there isn't any way to become proficient in it [My mistake. There is: be a druid, which is now apparently a must have for the party if you want potions of healing]. And some make little sense- gaming sets are tools, but you become proficient in specific games, rather than sets. So it is actually a skill, masquerading as a tool. (and do games use dex, int, wis or cha? No idea. Is 'horseshoes' a game? No idea).
These rules are half-written (this also includes attack rolls and saves, which only imply you add proficiency bonuses, but this is written out nowhere) and this is the Final playtest doc. And based on every other one, they're just going to throw out whole systems and replace them, so we don't even know if 5e will even vaguely look like this.
As far as numbers go, base DC locks aren't that problematic... if you have a rogue (or a 3rd level bard) for expertise. But skill checks for the party can diverge easily (and quickly), to the point that cause the party to crash. Jumping pits, climbing walls, etc. There the numbers at first level realistically go from -1 to +9, and at 20th level, they are -1 to +16. DCs are 5 (but don't use that) to 30. Without expertise, DC 30 is pretty much fuck you IF you are maxed in the skill, and fuck you completely if you aren't (no 20 auto-succeeds)
Bonus find: I finally found something that actually explains how proficiencies work, and actually says you add the bonus to attacks and saves you are proficient in. It is in a text box at the end of the Character Creation document. Instead of the 'How to Play' doc, which would actually make sense.
Last edited by Voss on Sat Sep 21, 2013 6:56 pm, edited 3 times in total.
To expand on Voss's excellent post:
DCs range from 10 to 35 in increments of 5. Let's say you are a 1st level rogue, with a dex of 16 (+3), proficiency (+1) and expertise (+5). You're at +9 to pick a lock. A DC 10 is an auto-pass. A DC 15 is not a challenge. You need to start with a DC 20 lock to start to challenge a basic 1st level rogue. If you actually want to slow them down, you need a DC 25 lock.
Now, if you are any other class, you most likely don't have proficiency, and you don't have expertise. At best you've got a 16 dex, for a +3. A DC 20 is basically beyond you, and a DC 25 is always beyond you. If the check in question was basically a dump stat for you, you're probably just rolling a d20. So you will never even bother to try to pick a lock because you'll just fail it if it was a serious lock, or your chances are so dismal compared the person with the actual skill that it's a waste of everyone's time for you even roll.
That proficiency bonuses increase as you level is almost a trap. Let's say for whatever reason we have a 20th level fighter that decides to pick up lock picking. It's useful, right? He's got a dex of 14, so his total bonus is +8 to the check. Our 20th rogue however is rocking a 20 dex, proficiency and expertise, putting him at +16.
So to challenge the rogue, you need to pull out the DC 25 or 30 lock, but the 25 is effectively out of the fighter's picking range, and the 30 is always out of it.
This is a minor issue if the DM pulls the 'doesn't matter what you roll, I'll ignore the result and MTP is anyways' which is bad, or they change the DC on the lock depending on who is in the party or who is picking it, which jips rogues, or breaks vermalstitude.
This is a major issue if your group is trying to run a prewritten module, because the DC has to be weak enough that anyone could pick it, or strong enough t challenge someone with proficiency/expertise and impossible for everyone else.
Of course people point out that the impossible/unchallengeing locks in prewritten adventures can totally be fixed by the DM adjusting them on the fly which is not only one of our favorite fallacies, but almost entirely defeats the purpose of paying for a pre-written adventure which is the DM isn't make that crap up on the fly.
The whole proficiency/expertise thing also flies in the face of the 'attributes are the main thing you want' goal. The main thing you want is Expertise, and then proficiency, and finally the attribute. The attribute is the least valuable overall because it doesn't automatically increase and provides the smallest bonus until it's maxed which happens at 12th level if you've used all your feats for it as a fighter. For doing nothing your Prof. bonus at 12th level is 1 less, and matches it at 15th level.
DCs range from 10 to 35 in increments of 5. Let's say you are a 1st level rogue, with a dex of 16 (+3), proficiency (+1) and expertise (+5). You're at +9 to pick a lock. A DC 10 is an auto-pass. A DC 15 is not a challenge. You need to start with a DC 20 lock to start to challenge a basic 1st level rogue. If you actually want to slow them down, you need a DC 25 lock.
Now, if you are any other class, you most likely don't have proficiency, and you don't have expertise. At best you've got a 16 dex, for a +3. A DC 20 is basically beyond you, and a DC 25 is always beyond you. If the check in question was basically a dump stat for you, you're probably just rolling a d20. So you will never even bother to try to pick a lock because you'll just fail it if it was a serious lock, or your chances are so dismal compared the person with the actual skill that it's a waste of everyone's time for you even roll.
That proficiency bonuses increase as you level is almost a trap. Let's say for whatever reason we have a 20th level fighter that decides to pick up lock picking. It's useful, right? He's got a dex of 14, so his total bonus is +8 to the check. Our 20th rogue however is rocking a 20 dex, proficiency and expertise, putting him at +16.
So to challenge the rogue, you need to pull out the DC 25 or 30 lock, but the 25 is effectively out of the fighter's picking range, and the 30 is always out of it.
This is a minor issue if the DM pulls the 'doesn't matter what you roll, I'll ignore the result and MTP is anyways' which is bad, or they change the DC on the lock depending on who is in the party or who is picking it, which jips rogues, or breaks vermalstitude.
This is a major issue if your group is trying to run a prewritten module, because the DC has to be weak enough that anyone could pick it, or strong enough t challenge someone with proficiency/expertise and impossible for everyone else.
Of course people point out that the impossible/unchallengeing locks in prewritten adventures can totally be fixed by the DM adjusting them on the fly which is not only one of our favorite fallacies, but almost entirely defeats the purpose of paying for a pre-written adventure which is the DM isn't make that crap up on the fly.
The whole proficiency/expertise thing also flies in the face of the 'attributes are the main thing you want' goal. The main thing you want is Expertise, and then proficiency, and finally the attribute. The attribute is the least valuable overall because it doesn't automatically increase and provides the smallest bonus until it's maxed which happens at 12th level if you've used all your feats for it as a fighter. For doing nothing your Prof. bonus at 12th level is 1 less, and matches it at 15th level.
What do the Retry sections look like for the various skills? If most of them are Retry: Yes, then "effectively out of the fighter's range" is fairly meaningless: he can take 20 (or just keep rolling if take 20 is no longer a thing) and eventually get that door open.
FrankTrollman wrote:I think Grek already won the thread and we should pack it in.
Chamomile wrote:Grek is a national treasure.
There isn't a retry section, and while yes you could just say 'you try over and over until you succeed' I assume you'd just not make the check if you could do that anyways. The problem is that when you're making a check, you probably need to having something happen right now before things hit the fan.Grek wrote:What do the Retry sections look like for the various skills? If most of them are Retry: Yes, then "effectively out of the fighter's range" is fairly meaningless: he can take 20 (or just keep rolling if take 20 is no longer a thing) and eventually get that door open.
Lock Picking is something you could just say 'you pass because you're going to anyways' most of the time. Doing that when you have say, 1 minute before being crushed by a ceiling is less effective, or if you have to pick that lock to escape a horde of ghouls that will seriously kill you dead right now.
Say you need to sneak you get Stealth proficiency as a fighter. Now, you're 10th level and you can sneak with +6 (+2 from dex +4 prof). Would you really want to try and sneak when basic rogue would get a +14 (+5 dex +5 expert +4 prof)? If you fail to sneak, you're spotted, and that is not only immediately bad for you, but probably bad for you allies, even the ones who are good at sneaking as well. It's also not enough to really push that 1st level mook from being able to spot you with a simple d20 roll.
Would you want to try and climb up a 150' cliff face with d20+1 if the adventure assumed you had a d20+10 and set DC at 15? Technically you would eventually make it up the cliff, unless you fell enough times, or far enough to kill you first which is orders of magnitude more likely (if you could fall from a failed climb check with you don't seem to be able to in 5e).
It's really pretty close to the same problem 3.x had with skills: You're all in, or you're wasting your time, except that you can't really get all in anymore if you didn't basically start out going that way.
Last edited by Previn on Sat Sep 21, 2013 11:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Well, or multiclass. And a level 1 dip into rogue might be useful enough to be nigh mandatory for any non-spellcaster, as you immediately get 4 skills, expertise in any of 4 skills or tools (they don't have to rogue skills), proficiency in thieves tools, dex saves, and 1d6 sneak attack, which still seriously operates whenever someone friendly happens to be standing within 5' of the target (or when you have advantage). The only things you lose out on are HP, and slightly delaying your ability progression (including multiple attacks). But you obviously get a giant pile of stuff.
Unlike 3e, however, starting out as a rogue is rather dumb, because you are a lot more squishy without any advantages. (like the giant pile of skill points character level 1 as a rogue gave in 3e)
Multiclassing is another thing that is ridiculously weird in 5e. You get everything but additional spells (including spell slots), extra attacks (and you do get work up to them if your classes get them) and channel divinity uses. But you're essentially trading out class features (including ability score improvements) so working out if multiclassing is worthwhile involves examining every class in detail and figuring out what bullshit you can pull off.
Rogue 1 is probably worth it, since you get all that shit, plus sneak attack almost all the times if your allies aren't idiots, so delaying extra attacks by a level is probably worth it.
Wizards are a weird question mark, because the ability to add spells into their spellbook doesn't address muticlassing at all. If you're a 5th level wizard but 10th level spellcaster (total), I have absolutely no idea if you can learn cloudkill or not. If you can it looks like you can prepare it, and cast it (sine you have a fifth level slot), but learning is ???. It is also one of the 6 spells you can prepare per day, since preparation is still based off class level (and mages prepare 1+mage level spells total), and you can only cast it once.
But since DC is based solely on stat and proficiency, effectiveness isn't a limiting factor on multiclass spellcasters.
What is a bad thing is the spells per day chart is for all your classes combined. A mage 1/druid 1/ cleric 1 can prepare 2 1st level spells for each class, + the cleric's domain spells, but can still only cast 4 1st level spells and 2 2nd level spells, exactly as a cleric 3 or mage 3 can. (higher level slots can be used to cast lower level spells... at least in this case). So there is higher flexibility, but lower power. And since you get fewer higher level slots than lower level slots (6+ is 1/each, no matter your level), and you won't get high level spells at all if you try to balance caster classes, spellcaster multiclassing is largely not good.
For non-casters, figuring out if multiclassing is worthwhile involves digging through fucking everything.
Bonus thought: naked barbarians are supported by 5e. As long as they aren't wearing armor or shields, barbarian AC is 10+dex mod+con mod. Hurrah for the naked finesse barbarians. Go human and you can run around with an 18 AC naked at level 4, which is really damn good for 5e; equal to wearing plate, in fact.
Rogue/barbarians are actually rather amusing, since barbarians can just give themselves advantage all the time, and sneak attack kicks in off that.
The really, frustrating thing is, if this was the system they had brought out a year ago when the playtest started, it could have been worked over and refined into something. It is rough and unfinished, but that is OK at the beginning of a process. But this is the end of the process, after months of shit thrown at the walls and tossed out, this is the final playtest version. More than likely the final game will be a slightly revised version of this (that it has all the 3e and 4e core races, and all the 3e base classes is rather telling), and it needs a lot more than that. Of course, they could randomly jettison parts and insert even more stupid shit, but I really suspect this is the draft version of the final product. And there simply isn't time to clean it up and make it better. While it might pull in the 4e crowd (well, the ones that don't find it too complicated), it just isn't going to pick the brand back up. Paizo and company wins by default because Mearls and company dicked around with irrelevant, unworkable bullshit (like the module concept) for 12 months.
Unlike 3e, however, starting out as a rogue is rather dumb, because you are a lot more squishy without any advantages. (like the giant pile of skill points character level 1 as a rogue gave in 3e)
Multiclassing is another thing that is ridiculously weird in 5e. You get everything but additional spells (including spell slots), extra attacks (and you do get work up to them if your classes get them) and channel divinity uses. But you're essentially trading out class features (including ability score improvements) so working out if multiclassing is worthwhile involves examining every class in detail and figuring out what bullshit you can pull off.
Rogue 1 is probably worth it, since you get all that shit, plus sneak attack almost all the times if your allies aren't idiots, so delaying extra attacks by a level is probably worth it.
Wizards are a weird question mark, because the ability to add spells into their spellbook doesn't address muticlassing at all. If you're a 5th level wizard but 10th level spellcaster (total), I have absolutely no idea if you can learn cloudkill or not. If you can it looks like you can prepare it, and cast it (sine you have a fifth level slot), but learning is ???. It is also one of the 6 spells you can prepare per day, since preparation is still based off class level (and mages prepare 1+mage level spells total), and you can only cast it once.
But since DC is based solely on stat and proficiency, effectiveness isn't a limiting factor on multiclass spellcasters.
What is a bad thing is the spells per day chart is for all your classes combined. A mage 1/druid 1/ cleric 1 can prepare 2 1st level spells for each class, + the cleric's domain spells, but can still only cast 4 1st level spells and 2 2nd level spells, exactly as a cleric 3 or mage 3 can. (higher level slots can be used to cast lower level spells... at least in this case). So there is higher flexibility, but lower power. And since you get fewer higher level slots than lower level slots (6+ is 1/each, no matter your level), and you won't get high level spells at all if you try to balance caster classes, spellcaster multiclassing is largely not good.
For non-casters, figuring out if multiclassing is worthwhile involves digging through fucking everything.
Bonus thought: naked barbarians are supported by 5e. As long as they aren't wearing armor or shields, barbarian AC is 10+dex mod+con mod. Hurrah for the naked finesse barbarians. Go human and you can run around with an 18 AC naked at level 4, which is really damn good for 5e; equal to wearing plate, in fact.
Rogue/barbarians are actually rather amusing, since barbarians can just give themselves advantage all the time, and sneak attack kicks in off that.
The really, frustrating thing is, if this was the system they had brought out a year ago when the playtest started, it could have been worked over and refined into something. It is rough and unfinished, but that is OK at the beginning of a process. But this is the end of the process, after months of shit thrown at the walls and tossed out, this is the final playtest version. More than likely the final game will be a slightly revised version of this (that it has all the 3e and 4e core races, and all the 3e base classes is rather telling), and it needs a lot more than that. Of course, they could randomly jettison parts and insert even more stupid shit, but I really suspect this is the draft version of the final product. And there simply isn't time to clean it up and make it better. While it might pull in the 4e crowd (well, the ones that don't find it too complicated), it just isn't going to pick the brand back up. Paizo and company wins by default because Mearls and company dicked around with irrelevant, unworkable bullshit (like the module concept) for 12 months.
Last edited by Voss on Sun Sep 22, 2013 1:20 am, edited 4 times in total.
So what direction have they taken the variety of mundane weapons this time around? The "Swords, Daggers, Bows, Axes, Sticks, Maces" direction, or back to old-school "Guisarme, Glaive, Guisarme-Glaive, Halberd, Carbine-Glaive, Pike, Lancastrian Tea Cosy, Lucerne-Hammer, Lochaber, Hooked Axe, Warscythe, Naginata, Swiss Army Polearm, Dire Lance, Extended Drill"?
Count Arioch the 28th wrote:There is NOTHING better than lesbians. Lesbians make everything better.
But you need a 15 dex to multiclass rogue, which while not unworkable, has issues of it's own. Let's say I'm a dwarven fighter using the standard array. I do 16 str, 13 dex, 14 con which goes to 15 do to dwarfiness. Now, I can't multiclass into rogue until I hit an ability score increase and choose to increase my dex by 2 points.Voss wrote:Well, or multiclass. And a level 1 dip into rogue might be useful enough to be nigh mandatory for any non-spellcaster, as you immediately get 4 skills, expertise in any of 4 skills or tools (they don't have to rogue skills), proficiency in thieves tools, dex saves, and 1d6 sneak attack, which still seriously operates whenever someone friendly happens to be standing within 5' of the target (or when you have advantage). The only things you lose out on are HP, and slightly delaying your ability progression (including multiple attacks). But you obviously get a giant pile of stuff.
I'm not saying it isn't totally worth it because expertise blows most things in 5e completely out of the water, but it takes an awareness of how good expertise is and that you should sacrifice to get it.
Yup, this is the second thing I've seen out of 5e that I actually like at least conceptually. I think if they had started with this, and could do math, they would actually have had much more solid core and actually have an at least presentable product.The really, frustrating thing is, if this was the system they had brought out a year ago when the playtest started, it could have been worked over and refined into something. It is rough and unfinished, but that is OK at the beginning of a process. But this is the end of the process, after months of shit thrown at the walls and tossed out, this is the final playtest version.
Cut out the stupid stuff like dire flails and spiked chains and remove all the eastern themed weapons from the 3.x list that's pretty much it. I have no idea what a short bow is a simple weapon and a longbow is a martial one though.Koumei wrote:So what direction have they taken the variety of mundane weapons this time around? The "Swords, Daggers, Bows, Axes, Sticks, Maces" direction, or back to old-school "Guisarme, Glaive, Guisarme-Glaive, Halberd, Carbine-Glaive, Pike, Lancastrian Tea Cosy, Lucerne-Hammer, Lochaber, Hooked Axe, Warscythe, Naginata, Swiss Army Polearm, Dire Lance, Extended Drill"?
Haven't they said they're not publishing until, like, mid-2014? So there's still a good 6 months before they really get into last-minute fiddling for page layouts and stuff. So 15 months got them to here via 10 patch-loops, and another 6 gets them ~4 more.
And then in '17 they can try putting out a 5.5 to fix everything they missed. Other than the core math, which is still very much in flux. I mean, if it turns out +5 for 20 levels for everything just isn't fucking big enough for a bunch of stuff and is still too big for other stuff then it's either feat taxes and radical DC shifts, or 6th edition in 2020 at the earliest before that changes. Or they'll flail around for decades pretending none of that could possibly matter, like how giving people +5 to hit, to damage, and to AC from Dex is just fine (honest (really (what?))).
Ah, D&D 2020, the Cyberpunk edition. I have seen it with perfect foresight. Laser-Clerics, embedded magic-items, and more crazy similes, all making a big comeback.
And then in '17 they can try putting out a 5.5 to fix everything they missed. Other than the core math, which is still very much in flux. I mean, if it turns out +5 for 20 levels for everything just isn't fucking big enough for a bunch of stuff and is still too big for other stuff then it's either feat taxes and radical DC shifts, or 6th edition in 2020 at the earliest before that changes. Or they'll flail around for decades pretending none of that could possibly matter, like how giving people +5 to hit, to damage, and to AC from Dex is just fine (honest (really (what?))).
Ah, D&D 2020, the Cyberpunk edition. I have seen it with perfect foresight. Laser-Clerics, embedded magic-items, and more crazy similes, all making a big comeback.
PC, SJW, anti-fascist, not being a dick, or working on it, he/him.
Weapons are standard generic stuff. Glaives and halberds, but not the most esoteric pole arms.Koumei wrote:So what direction have they taken the variety of mundane weapons this time around? The "Swords, Daggers, Bows, Axes, Sticks, Maces" direction, or back to old-school "Guisarme, Glaive, Guisarme-Glaive, Halberd, Carbine-Glaive, Pike, Lancastrian Tea Cosy, Lucerne-Hammer, Lochaber, Hooked Axe, Warscythe, Naginata, Swiss Army Polearm, Dire Lance, Extended Drill"?
Tridents are surprisingly in the list (so many editions leave them out), and kind of quirky. One handed and throwable by default, but if used two handed, they do 1d8 rather than 1d6.
No bastard sword, instead a long sword does 1d10 when used two-handed.
Crossbows are slightly less stupid (the loading property just limits you to a single shot per attack action, rather than the wholly stupid every other turn from earlier playtests), and have a bigger die type than bows. But light crossbows and shortbows are simple, and the rest are martial, and as Previn points out, that makes little sense.
There is a sidebar for 'oriental weapons' but it is seriously just a summary of comparable weapons, and a general just of 'fuck you, it is flavor, deal with it' [Tanto to dagger, wakizashi to short sword, katana to longsword, nunchaku to mace, shuriken to dart, etc]. Frankly, I approve. It's a fucking sword, shut the hell up.
Haven't seen anything about 'mid.' I could see doing spring like 4e, or just waiting til GenCon, because so many people in the industry think that is legitimate advertising for some reason (and it is, for people who already follow closely, but it means shit to the vast majority of the market).tussock wrote:Haven't they said they're not publishing until, like, mid-2014?
@previn. Meh. For a ranged or finesse build, it isn't a sacrifice at all, and with the right race (human, particularly, since you'll always need two stat ups to max anyway), you don't need that much. I suspect anyone trying to exploit the multiclass system will have the patience to dig through the system for the good shit. Like the fucking fighter. They get to do their temp hit points and extra action things in every damn fight! And they get that shit at level one and two! And they can take protection fighting style and impose disadvantage on an attack every single round... also at level 1.
At some point I'm going to sit down and grind through a few levels of multiclass options. I'm expecting some really weird results, and it is going to vary wildly depending on the levels involved. But I guess I need some baselines for single classes first. This may take a while.
Bonus weirdness: crits changed again; to max damage + one of your damage dice. (the still screws greatswords, since they do 12+1d6 (+mods). Greataxe does 12+1d12 (+mods), Longsword does 8+1d8 or 10+1d10 if used two handed.... on average, the same as a greatsword, and with a higher potential.
Last edited by Voss on Sun Sep 22, 2013 3:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
OgreBattle
- King
- Posts: 6820
- Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 9:33 am
Conan the Fighter1/Thief1/Barbarian1 should be fun.Voss wrote: @previn. Meh. For a ranged or finesse build, it isn't a sacrifice at all, and with the right race (human, particularly, since you'll always need two stat ups to max anyway), you don't need that much. I suspect anyone trying to exploit the multiclass system will have the patience to dig through the system for the good shit. Like the fucking fighter. They get to do their temp hit points and extra action things in every damn fight! And they get that shit at level one and two! And they can take protection fighting style and impose disadvantage on an attack every single round... also at level 1.
Dexterity-Guy the Fighter/Thief/Barbarian might actually be pretty damn good. The downside is your stat boosts come really late. (level 6 minimum)OgreBattle wrote: Conan the Fighter1/Thief1/Barbarian1 should be fun.
But this is what the 1/1/1 could look like, finessed focused (and fighter first, to qualify for the muticlassing requirements)
Human Barbarian 1/Fighter 1/Rogue 1
S 14 ........HP: 10+7+3+9 = 29
D 16 ........languages: Common, Orcish, Draconic, Giant
C 16 .........AC: 16
I 10 ..........Proficiency bonus: +2
W 14
C 10
Background: Bounty Hunter
Skills:........................Tools:................................Saves:
+9 Perception.(exp)...+5.Mounts (land)................+2 Strength
+5 Stealth..................+10 thieves‘ tools.(exp).....+2 Constitution
+7 Search......(exp)............................................+2 Dexterity
+4 Survival
+9 Athletics..(exp)
+5 Acrobatics
+4 Insight
+5 Sleight of Hand
+2 Deception
all armor, shields, simple and martial weapons
dual shortswords +5 to hit, 1d6+3 damage each +2 when raging +1d6 for sneak attack, 1/round (with advantage or friend nearby)
(2 attacks every attack, one each)
2 Rages per long rest (advantage on strength checks and saves, rage damage, 2 temp hp until rage ends)
thick hide: AC =10+dex+con
Fighting Style: two weapon fighting: ability modifier applies to damage of second attack
Second Wind: one per rest: action: gain 1d6+1 temp hp for 5 minutes
Last edited by Voss on Sun Sep 22, 2013 4:41 am, edited 2 times in total.
How does Wizard vs. Fighter stack up at levels 1, 5, 10 and 15?
FrankTrollman wrote:I think Grek already won the thread and we should pack it in.
Chamomile wrote:Grek is a national treasure.
The obvious solution seems to be, to put in locks of different difficulties.Previn wrote:This is a major issue if your group is trying to run a prewritten module, because the DC has to be weak enough that anyone could pick it, or strong enough t challenge someone with proficiency/expertise and impossible for everyone else.
Of course people point out that the impossible/unchallengeing locks in prewritten adventures can totally be fixed by the DM adjusting them on the fly which is not only one of our favorite fallacies, but almost entirely defeats the purpose of paying for a pre-written adventure which is the DM isn't make that crap up on the fly.
If you have a fighter along, she can pick some of them and you have to bash down some doors (or something) to get past the rest, which could lead to certain disadvantages.
While having a rogue along, he could pick all of them.
Gary Gygax wrote:The player’s path to role-playing mastery begins with a thorough understanding of the rules of the game
Bigode wrote:I wouldn't normally make that blanket of a suggestion, but you seem to deserve it: scroll through the entire forum, read anything that looks interesting in term of design experience, then come back.
Meh, accept if you're going to let people spend build currency and possibly their precious actions on picking locks (of all things) that they can just pick all the locks all of the time (and sooner rather than later do so for free while also killing stuff, juggling chainsaws, and delivering witty one-liners that shatter opposition confidence).
Ideally, if a game was to let a Fighter also spend currency on picking locks (because Conan) then they should get the same deal, rather than a shitty version that often doesn't work. I mean, I can pick locks, it's not that fucking hard.
But then, I'm more of the school that believes in not letting players take bad options of late. That system mastery thing's all well and good for the kids, I just can't be bothered. If you're letting me choose something, let it work. Awesomely. (Or have a game that's grimdark and full of failure for every option, which also works.)
Goes back to that thing where if I can be a Fighter at all, that should work, monsters should have the decency to die in the face of my <whatever your edition gives Fighters>.
Ideally, if a game was to let a Fighter also spend currency on picking locks (because Conan) then they should get the same deal, rather than a shitty version that often doesn't work. I mean, I can pick locks, it's not that fucking hard.
But then, I'm more of the school that believes in not letting players take bad options of late. That system mastery thing's all well and good for the kids, I just can't be bothered. If you're letting me choose something, let it work. Awesomely. (Or have a game that's grimdark and full of failure for every option, which also works.)
Goes back to that thing where if I can be a Fighter at all, that should work, monsters should have the decency to die in the face of my <whatever your edition gives Fighters>.
PC, SJW, anti-fascist, not being a dick, or working on it, he/him.
The strength check DC to break down a door is equal to it's current HP, so 10 for a 'wooden' door, and 60 for an 'iron' door. Apparently all doors are 2" thick except for wooden ones which are 1" thick and not actually a barrier to anyone or anything, more like a privacy curtain.ishy wrote:The obvious solution seems to be, to put in locks of different difficulties.Previn wrote:This is a major issue if your group is trying to run a prewritten module, because the DC has to be weak enough that anyone could pick it, or strong enough t challenge someone with proficiency/expertise and impossible for everyone else.
Of course people point out that the impossible/unchallengeing locks in prewritten adventures can totally be fixed by the DM adjusting them on the fly which is not only one of our favorite fallacies, but almost entirely defeats the purpose of paying for a pre-written adventure which is the DM isn't make that crap up on the fly.
If you have a fighter along, she can pick some of them and you have to bash down some doors (or something) to get past the rest, which could lead to certain disadvantages.
While having a rogue along, he could pick all of them.
The 'good' news is that doors (and walls) are not a barrier if you have time. Like 4e objects have no hardness, so a schoolgirl can punch through an adamantine door/wall if you give her long enough. This also means that it is impossible to hold PCs in a cell unless they are essentially incapacitated.
I have 2 big issue with how they're doing things. The first exactly what tussock says: it's Ivory Tower game design, whether intentional or not. The second is that they've fubard the math so that it's exceedingly difficult to have a middle ground where you can have both the novice and expert reasonably contribute to the same check unless the check was basically pointless to make anyways.
Really the problem boils down to expertise giving +5 is way too much, especially at low levels. If it was a scaling bonus (+1 starting +1 for every 4 levels), it could actually sort of work.
That's the goal, which makes no sense. To allow anyone to do anything without prof/expertise locking people out, every DC would need to fall between 2 and 19. Any DC over 20 is telling people 'you must be this tall to ride this check' and any DC over 25 is doubling down on that.Mearls wrote:The skill and proficiency system allows anyone to attempt anything. Skills and proficiencies offer a bonus. They are not a wall that closes off even the chance to try something.
well, at first level, the fighter is generally more useful. The wizard is the old 2-shot artillery piece, and then falls back on cantrips, specifically the ray of frost crossbow. And probably provides light.Grek wrote:How does Wizard vs. Fighter stack up at levels 1, 5, 10 and 15?
At higher levels, it gets more complicated. The 5e fighter can definitely do more, and though the numbers aren't bigger, the fighter accumulates extra attacks pretty quickly. There are 1/enc benefits as well, like the temp hp and the extra action, combat superiority from the weaponmaster path (formerly gladiator) gives him some support actions, and the 'protector' feature is pretty good, and actually useful for the party (though the wizard also gets some innate protection abilities, though the enchanter is pretty superior in this regard). The evoker and evocations in general are festering piles of shit. Which is frustrating, because any damage spell with a duration has the same damage curve, but lasts up to a minute (Cloudkill, Flaming Sphere, Wall of Fire) those are worthwhile, but are often conjuration.
Spells prepared (1+class level) and spells per day (which really limits higher level spells) keep spellcasters in check to some degree. But it is really going to depend on how 'long rests' are handled. The rules specifically call out 'only once per 24 hours,' which limits the casters quite a bit. At will cantrips are nice, but spell management is going to be a big deal. There are a lot of battle changing effects, most of which are entirely familar: stinking cloud, evard's black tentacles, dominate person, even wall of fire is pretty damn good give the way monsters are set up.
Spell DCs are pretty funky, by the by. Setting the base DC to 8 actually makes sense with stat and prof going into it. It works out to DC 12 at level 1, 14 at 5, 16 at 10 and DC 18 at level 15 (DC19 at 20)
Ultimately, if feels pretty D&D. The fighter is definitely better than previous incarnations, but the wizard still has big stuff that puts the fighting classes to shame. But there are much stricter limits on how many of those they can pull off, though it helps that lower level stuff keeps a relevant DC forever. Evocations are utter shit, however, unless they can be sustained (concentration) for a duration. Concentration also limits how many major effects you can keep up at once. Many duration spells are mutually exclusive for this reason. Mostly an improvement over 3e in this regard, and with a lot of familiar stuff. There are a few missing things- mostly summoning bullshit, which I also see as an improvement. But animate dead and dominate person/monster are still around. The former only creates a single critter (unless cast at a higher level), and is just skeletons or zombies.
Rambling now, but putting the higher level wizards together was very similar to 3e. The spells are mostly familiar, and the good shit is too. Here is a 10th level wizard's set up: abilities and spells:
Arcane Recovery: 1/day, during rest: regain slot equal to half your level, round up.
School of Enchantment
Aura of Antipathy- any creature in 10’ has disadvantage with melee attacks against you, unless immune to charm.
Instinctive Charm- as a reaction, force a creature within 50’ that attacks you to attack elsewhere (or nothing if no other targets in range), Wis, DC same as spell DC.
Spells prepared: (11)
1st: Mage Armor, Sleep,
2nd: Mirror Image, Suggestion,
3rd: Dispel Magic, Fly, Stinking Cloud,
4th: Evard’s Black Tentacles, Wall of Fire,
5th: Dominate Person, Telekinesis
Spells per day: 4 1st, 3 2nd, 3 3rd, 3 4th, 2 5th
All DCs are 16.
Preparation limits things immensely, (and in retrospect dropping sleep is a good idea at this level because it affects a hp total), and this isn't necessarily the best combination, but it looks rather familiar, yeah? And nothing like 4e.
Here are a 10th level fighter's abiliities
Fighting Style: Protection: reaction, impose disadvantage on enemy attack, on you or target within 5’
Second Wind: encounter, 1d6+10 temp hp, 1/short rest
Action surge: take an additional action, 1/short rest
Path of the Weaponmaster: Combat superiority 4 superiority dice (1d8?): dirty trick, spring attack, trip, bell ringer, drive back, hamstring (note: dice might not be d8s, the level 10 ability is missing)
Extra Attack (2 total) (third attack kicks in at 11th level, and no one else gets that)
Defy Death: reduced to 0 hp but not killed, make DC 15 Con save, on sucess, instead reduced to 1 hp. Apparently infinite uses.
Bonus: found several mistakes in just the fighter and mage write ups. One of the fighter path abilities is just missing (but referenced), and mages get an ability at 5th or 6th level the chart and the text disagree. Such as rough job on this 'final' playtest.
Last edited by Voss on Sun Sep 22, 2013 4:26 pm, edited 2 times in total.
sadly since NWPs came about where people had a finite list of things they could do, the concept of "try and do anything [even if it doesnt appear in your list on your character sheet]" jsut doesnt work, because there isnt a rule for doing something outside the list. and people think you have a limited list to limit you and get frustrated. ergo... fuck 2E PHB Chapter 5 and everything that came after it that is similar.Previn wrote:That's the goal, which makes no sense. To allow anyone to do anything without prof/expertise locking people out, every DC would need to fall between 2 and 19. Any DC over 20 is telling people 'you must be this tall to ride this check' and any DC over 25 is doubling down on that.Mearls wrote:The skill and proficiency system allows anyone to attempt anything. Skills and proficiencies offer a bonus. They are not a wall that closes off even the chance to try something.
Play the game, not the rules.
good read (Note to self Maxus sucks a barrel of cocks.)
Swordslinger wrote:Or fuck it... I'm just going to get weapon specialization in my cock and whip people to death with it. Given all the enemies are total pussies, it seems like the appropriate thing to do.
Lewis Black wrote:If the people of New Zealand want to be part of our world, I believe they should hop off their islands, and push 'em closer.
Mucking about with characters, expertise is definitely the problem. Without it (and just knock DC30 off entirely), it seems pretty functional.Previn wrote: Really the problem boils down to expertise giving +5 is way too much, especially at low levels. If it was a scaling bonus (+1 starting +1 for every 4 levels), it could actually sort of work.
-1 to +4 forms the range for skill bonuses at level 1, which makes DC 10 and 15 viable. At 20, the bonus is +5 to +11, which makes DC 15-20 a reasonable range for level appropriate challenges, and 25 good for truly 'heroic' challenges. It isn't perfect, but it is functional. Without expertise, it almost seems like an improvement over 3e skills and their crazy numbers, extreme bonuses and fucking insane effects on certain skills (diplomancy, anyone?).
The funny thing is, hit vs AC functions off the same system, but isn't burdened by expertise, and only rarely strays into the AC20+ range (and never 30).
The spell DC change (8 base + stat and prof) actually makes sense as well. Base 10 would be crazy town pretty quick. As is, it hits DC 12 at level 1, and DC 19 at level 20. (which is actually really hard for most monsters).
-
OgreBattle
- King
- Posts: 6820
- Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 9:33 am
Level 10 multiclassing looks fun for non-magical guys.
Drizzt D'Conan
Fighter 7/Barbarian 3
-Fighting style: TWF
-Second Wind
-Action Surge
-Martial Path: Warrior (crit on 18-20, so roughly 27.75% chance to critical with advantage, right?)
-Extra Attack
-Rage: Advantage on melee attacks, +2 damage
-Thick Hide: add CON to naked AC
-Feral Instinct: advantage to initiative rolls
-Hawk Totem: advantage on dex melee attacks
Contra Dude
Fighter7/Rogue 3
-Fighting style: Archery
-3 Superiority dice
-Second Wind
-Action Surge
-Martial Path: Weaponmaster (trip with arrows!)
-Extra Attack
-Thrown weapon master: TWF with throwing weapons*
-Sneak Attack 1d6
-Cunning Action: Disengage as a free action
-Assassinate: advantage against foes who haven't acted yet. Crit on surprised foes.
*Does Extra Attack let you TWF with the extra attack, or is it +1 attack no matter what you're using. So either this guy throws 4 things or 5 things a turn.
Drive monsters back stumbling with a hail of shuriken/knives/axes
Are there any interesting Spellsword/Eldritch Knight/Duskblade/Gish combos?
Drizzt D'Conan
Fighter 7/Barbarian 3
-Fighting style: TWF
-Second Wind
-Action Surge
-Martial Path: Warrior (crit on 18-20, so roughly 27.75% chance to critical with advantage, right?)
-Extra Attack
-Rage: Advantage on melee attacks, +2 damage
-Thick Hide: add CON to naked AC
-Feral Instinct: advantage to initiative rolls
-Hawk Totem: advantage on dex melee attacks
Contra Dude
Fighter7/Rogue 3
-Fighting style: Archery
-3 Superiority dice
-Second Wind
-Action Surge
-Martial Path: Weaponmaster (trip with arrows!)
-Extra Attack
-Thrown weapon master: TWF with throwing weapons*
-Sneak Attack 1d6
-Cunning Action: Disengage as a free action
-Assassinate: advantage against foes who haven't acted yet. Crit on surprised foes.
*Does Extra Attack let you TWF with the extra attack, or is it +1 attack no matter what you're using. So either this guy throws 4 things or 5 things a turn.
Drive monsters back stumbling with a hail of shuriken/knives/axes
Are there any interesting Spellsword/Eldritch Knight/Duskblade/Gish combos?
Last edited by OgreBattle on Mon Sep 23, 2013 5:42 am, edited 2 times in total.
-
Username17
- Serious Badass
- Posts: 29894
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
I'm not sure why you'd actually want to have no tasks that a trained character could do that an untrained character couldn't do by just trying a couple of times. Like, I seriously can't even see the argument for why you would want it to be impossible to be 10 points better at lockpicking than someone else.
-Username17
-Username17
-
Cyberzombie
- Knight-Baron
- Posts: 742
- Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2013 4:12 am
You wouldn't. But you do want a unified skill system. Having +25 lockpicking checks means you're also going to have +25 diplomacy checks.FrankTrollman wrote:I'm not sure why you'd actually want to have no tasks that a trained character could do that an untrained character couldn't do by just trying a couple of times. Like, I seriously can't even see the argument for why you would want it to be impossible to be 10 points better at lockpicking than someone else.
And while you definitely want the former, you may not want the latter.
The problem is that there's three categories of skills:
a) The task that you can repeat endlessly and the cut-off that matters is who can achieve the task at all, and you rarely care how long it takes. Kicking open a door, searching for secret doors or picking a lock falls in this category.
b) The kind of check that is designed to be done only by specialists, that you get one try at. Trying to tumble past an ogre, trying to climb over a spiked pit or disarm a trap is this sort of check.
c) The kind of check that is supposed to be something anyone in the party can do. Social skills fall into this category, because you want every character capable of talking to NPCs. Stealth also falls into this category to a limited degree too, assuming you want it to be possible for the party to skip encounters by sneaking by them.
To cover all those categories you either need multiple skill systems, or you set your skill system to be good at one of them, but suck at everything else. Right now D&DN seems calibrated towards type C skills, where 3E was set to type B. Most RPGs in general do a terrible job at representing type A.
Depends on penalties for failure and how retries work, and your whole model of what the dice represent and how often they need to work and so on.
You can have a system where the dice are once-only with retries only for new approaches, and then the small margins of difference are very important. 60% could be generating twice as many roadblocks as 80%. Ask the dice: is this lock pickable?
In a system with free retries and DCs in reach you're secretly rolling for a binomial task duration on your automated successes, so the differences probably need to be huge for anyone to even notice them. Ask the dice: how long will this take, and should we care for some reason?
With timed success limits, like a drowning puzzle where you have 5 rounds to get as many prisoner cages open as possible, the differences are constant, double your difference for double extra successes. Ask the dice: how many can I save? This is the "easy" combat model. How much did you contribute?
Unless you might drown if you get too few locks picked, then odds tend to explode around a narrow breakpoint. Ask the dice: can I get them all open before we drown? This is the "possible TPK" combat model. Can everyone contribute enough to swing it?
If it's all opposed checks, it depends how much you check. With one roll you need big differences for people to notice, with 20 checks even +2 is a devastating advantage on d20, unless you lose on any failure and then you need +40 or GTFO. Ask the game designer: do you understand iterative probability?
And then you throw advantage in the mix and it's more like d14+6, so your bonuses are relatively better, unless you're also throwing disadvantage on the other guy and then bonuses probably don't matter at all because you've won.
You can have a system where the dice are once-only with retries only for new approaches, and then the small margins of difference are very important. 60% could be generating twice as many roadblocks as 80%. Ask the dice: is this lock pickable?
In a system with free retries and DCs in reach you're secretly rolling for a binomial task duration on your automated successes, so the differences probably need to be huge for anyone to even notice them. Ask the dice: how long will this take, and should we care for some reason?
With timed success limits, like a drowning puzzle where you have 5 rounds to get as many prisoner cages open as possible, the differences are constant, double your difference for double extra successes. Ask the dice: how many can I save? This is the "easy" combat model. How much did you contribute?
Unless you might drown if you get too few locks picked, then odds tend to explode around a narrow breakpoint. Ask the dice: can I get them all open before we drown? This is the "possible TPK" combat model. Can everyone contribute enough to swing it?
If it's all opposed checks, it depends how much you check. With one roll you need big differences for people to notice, with 20 checks even +2 is a devastating advantage on d20, unless you lose on any failure and then you need +40 or GTFO. Ask the game designer: do you understand iterative probability?
And then you throw advantage in the mix and it's more like d14+6, so your bonuses are relatively better, unless you're also throwing disadvantage on the other guy and then bonuses probably don't matter at all because you've won.
PC, SJW, anti-fascist, not being a dick, or working on it, he/him.
-
Username17
- Serious Badass
- Posts: 29894
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Just because most RPGs do a terrible job of representing A doesn't mean they have to or that you'd need a major overhaul of the system to do it. Imagine for the moment that you were playing 3e, but for "infinite retry" tasks, you used the Take 20 value to see if you succeeded or failed, and then used the amount the player rolled over or under the actual DC to determine how long the task took.Cyberzombie wrote:To cover all those categories you either need multiple skill systems, or you set your skill system to be good at one of them, but suck at everything else. Right now D&DN seems calibrated towards type C skills, where 3E was set to type B. Most RPGs in general do a terrible job at representing type A.
The system hasn't changed in any fundamental way, but now it outputs meaningful information (in this case: time to task completion) with a single die roll. As a player you have to report two values to the DM (rolled value and max value), but one of them is written on your character sheet and does not normally change.
There's no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water here. The skill systems of 2nd, 3rd, and 4th edition have a host of problems. But the fact that someone trained in lockpicking could pick a lock and someone who wasn't couldn't was never one of them.
-Fran
You can do C) with a raw attribute checks as opposed to skills. So for social checks you could just delete Diplomacy as a skill and use a Charisma check, for example.Cyberzombie wrote: The problem is that there's three categories of skills:
a) The task that you can repeat endlessly and the cut-off that matters is who can achieve the task at all, and you rarely care how long it takes. Kicking open a door, searching for secret doors or picking a lock falls in this category.
b) The kind of check that is designed to be done only by specialists, that you get one try at. Trying to tumble past an ogre, trying to climb over a spiked pit or disarm a trap is this sort of check.
c) The kind of check that is supposed to be something anyone in the party can do. Social skills fall into this category, because you want every character capable of talking to NPCs. Stealth also falls into this category to a limited degree too, assuming you want it to be possible for the party to skip encounters by sneaking by them.
To cover all those categories you either need multiple skill systems, or you set your skill system to be good at one of them, but suck at everything else. Right now D&DN seems calibrated towards type C skills, where 3E was set to type B. Most RPGs in general do a terrible job at representing type A.
Stealth checks ideally should be scaled to use the same sort of range of values as Perception checks- I'm not sure which type Perception checks should follow, but getting those to work should be the priority.